
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



~ 



Chapir-i... Copyright Xo. 

Shel£„:i3 & 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



A MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 

a (i) 



DR. TIGERT'S WORKS, 



A Constitutional History of American Episcopal Methodism, 

8vo. 414 pages. $1.50. 

Handbook of Logic : A Concise Body of Logical Doctrine, In- 
cluding Modern Additions; with Numerous Practical Exer- 
cises. Seventh Edition. 12mo. 320 pages. $1. 

Systematic Theology : A Complete Body of Wesleyan Arm in - 
ian Divinity, Consisting of Lectures on the Twenty-five Ar- 
ticles of Religion, by the late Rev. Thomas O. Summers, D.D., 
LL.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Vanderbilt Uni- 
versity. The Whole Arranged and Revised, with Introduc- 
tion, Copious Notes, Explanatory and Supplemental, and a 
Theological Glossary. Royal 8vo. In two volumes. 552, 
572 pages. Each, $2/ Same in sheep, per set, $6. 

The Preacher Himself : Homely Hints on Ministerial Manners 
and Methods. 12mo. 200 pages. 80 cents. 

Passing Through the Gates, and Other Sermons. By the late 
Rev. Holland Nimmons McTyeire, D.D., Senior Bistiop of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. With an Introduction 
by the Editor, giving an instructive, discriminating, and 
faithful estimate of Bishop McTyeire as a preacher. 12mo. 
319 pages. $1. 

A Voice from the South: The Fraternal Address delivered 
before the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, at Omaha, Neb., May 17, 1892. 12mo. 64 pages. 
Paper, 10 cents. 

The Journal of Thomas Coke, Bishop of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, from September 18, 1784, to June 3, 1785. Re- 
printed from the Arminian Magazine* Philadelphia, for 
May, June, July, and August, 1789. Carefully Conformed to 
the Original. 8vo. 32 pages. Paper, 50 cents. 

Theology and Philosophy, A Select Glossary of; Including 
Brief Biographical Notices of Eminent Theologians and Phi- 
losophers. 8vo. 52 pages. Paper, 25 cents. 

Original Status of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. 
8vo. 21 pages. 10 cents. 

Wandering Stars ; or, Rationalism the Root of Sin. 8vo. 16 
pages. 10 cents. 

BARBEE & SMITH, Agents, Nashville, Tenn, 



(K) 



J *w 



A MANUAL 



OF 



CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 



BY THE- ft»*>^* 

EEV. JOHN S. BANKS, 

Theological Tutor, Headingly College, Leeds. 



FIRST AMERICAN FROM FOURTH ENGLISH EDITION. 



EDITED, WITH INTRODUCTION AND ADDITIONS, BY 

JNO. J.'TIGERT, D.D., LL.D., 

i 
Book Editor, Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 



0\CE OF *^S 




Nashville, Tenn.: 
Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
Babbee & Smith, Agents 
3 ■ / 1897. 



2n u 




\ % <ni — v U V ^> ^ 



% 






Copyright. 
Barbee & Smith, Agents. 

1897. 



(*) 9? 82 



dO 



CONTENTS. 



INTRODUCTION. 

CHAPTER I. 
GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 

Pag« 

$ 1. Definition of Christian Theology 3 

$ 2. Science 4 

$ 3. A Science of Theology Legitimate: Its Materials 4 

$ 4. Usefulness of Theology 5 

$ 5. How Far Contained in Scripture: Its Technical Terms 5 

$ 6. Distinction of Doctrine and Dogma 6 

$ 7. Contrasts of Theological Systems 6 

$ 8. Theology Inductive 7 

$ 9. Varying Evidence for Physical, Historical, and Spiritual 

Truth 8 

$ 10. Intuitive, Demonstrative, and Probable Truth 8 

$11. Christian Evidences Cumulative 10 

$12. But Not Compulsory 10 

$ 13. Why Rejected by Many 11 

$ 14. Unity of Theology 13 

$ 15. Connection of Theory and Practice 13 

$ 16. The Body of Common Truth 14 

CHAPTER II. 
GENERAL FACTS. 

$ 17. Peter, Paul, and John iq 

$ 18. Antioch, Alexandria, and North Africa 16 

$19. The Three Ecumenical Creeds 17. 

$20. Greek and Latin Churches 19 

$21. Ecclesiastical Doctrinal Standards 20 

$22. Mysticism and Rationalism 21 

$23. History of Theology 23 

$24. Departments of Theology 25 

$25. Order of Treatment 26 

BOOK I. 

Doctrines Presupposed in Redemption. 

CHAPTER III. 
THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 

$26. Man's Knowledge of God Not Intuitive 29 

$27. A Truth of Revelation Confirmed by Reason.. ._ 30 

$ 28. The Four Arguments 31 

$29. The Cosmological Argument: Nature of Causality 31 

(v) 



VI CONTENTS. 

Pack 

$ 30. The Argument: Its Theistic Conclusion 83 

$ 31. The Eternity of Matter 34 

$32. Various Objections Answered 36 

$33. The Theological Argument 38 

$34. Objection: We Cannot Pass from Art to Nature 39 

$35. The Moral Argument 41 

$ 36. The Ontological Argument 43 

$ 37. The Four Arguments Complementary 45 

$38. Degree of Certainty Yielded 46 

$ 39. Antitheistic Theories 46 

$40. Pantheism 48 

$41. Materialism 50 

$42. Positivism 52 

$43. Agnosticism 53 

$ 44. Literature 53 

CHAPTER IV. 
THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE, 

$ 45. Introductory 55 

I. REVELATION. 

$ 46. Special and Supernatural 56 

$ 47. Threefold Evidence 57 

$48. Presumptive Evidence: Christian and Heathen Writings 

Compared 57 

$49. Evidences Proper: Miracles and Prophecy 59 

$ 50. Proper Conception of Miracles 59 

$ 51. Views of Modern Apologists Considered 60 

$52. Lecky and His School 61 

$ 53. Hume's Argument Answered 62 

$ 54. The Miracle of the Resurrection 64 

$55. The Evidence from Prophecy 66 

$ 56. Changed Treatment of Prophecy 67 

$ 57. Nature of the Argument 67 

$58. Alternatives 68 

$59. Auxiliary Evidences: The Unity of Scripture 68 

$60. The Character of Christ 69 

$61. The Holiness of God 70 

$ 62. Contrast Between Christ's Teaching and Human Philoso- 
phy 71 

$63. The Influence of Christianity 72 

$ 64. Final Evidence from Personal Experience 72 

$65. Conclusion 73 

II. INSPIRATION. 
A. — Doctrine of Inspiration. 

$ 66. Revelation and Inspiration Distinguished 73 

$67. The Old Testament 75 

$ 68. The New Testament 77 



CONTENTS. Vll 

B. — Dogma of Inspiration. Paob 

§ 69. No Uniform Theory 78 

§ 70. The Verbal Theory 79 

§ 71. The Dynamical Theory 80 

§ 72. Literature 81 

III. CANON. 

§ 73. Canon: Passive and Active Sense 81 

§ 74. The Passive Sense 82 

§ 75. The Old Testament 83 

§ 76. The New Testament 84 

§ 77. The Active Sense 89 

§ 78. Protestant Doctrine 89 

§ 79. Roman Position 90 

§ 80. The Official Definition of Tradition 91 

$ 81. Alleged Advantages Considered 94 

§ 82. Newman's Theory of Development 97 

§ 83. Literature 99 

CHAPTER V. 
THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES— THE TRINITY. 

I. ATTRIBUTES. 

§ 84. Essence and Attributes 100 

§ 85. Two Prevalent Errors 101 

§ 86. Attributes and Predicates 102 

§ 87. Classification of the Attributes 102 

§ 88. The Absolute Attributes 104 

§ 89. The Relative Attributes 104 

§ 90. Justice and Love ,. 106 

II. THE TRINITY. 

§ 91. A Truth of Revelation 107 

§ 92. Technical Terms: Person 108 

§ 93. Immanent and Economical Trinity 109 

A. — Doctrine ©/ Trinity . 

$ 94. Old Testament Intimations 109 

$ 95. Inferential Argument Ill 

$ 96. Express Statements 113 

B.— Dogma of Trinity, 

$ 97. Dogma Defines Against Error 113 

$ 98. Romanist and Rationalist View of Dogma 114 

$ 99. Sabellianism 115 

$ 100. Arianism 115 

$ 101. The Council of Nicjea 117 

§102. Generation and Procession 117 

$ 103. The Generation of the Son 117 

§104. The Procession of the Spirit 120 

§ 105. The Divinity of the Spirit 121 

§106. The Technical Terms 122 



Vlll CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER VI. 
CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. 

I. CREATION. Pxgk 

$ 107. Idea of Creation 124 

$ 10S. Origen's Position 125 

$109. Protest Against Manich^eism and Materialism 126 

II. THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN. 
$ 110. Two Views 126 

$ ill. Bearings of the Doctrine 128 

$ 112. Preexistence, Traducianism, and Creationism 128 

III. PROVIDENCE. 

$113. Negatives Deism and Pantheism 130 

$ 114. Continuous Creation 130 

$ 115. concursus 131 

CHAPTER VII. 

ACTUAL AND ORIGINAL SIN. 

$116. Historical Origin of Sin 133 

$ 117. Definition of Sin 133 

$ 118. Guilt and Corruption 134 

$ 119. Penalty of Death 135 

$120. Theories of Origin Tested 135 

I. ACTUAL SIN. 

$121. Universality of Guilt 137 

$122. Universality of Depravity 137 

II. DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL OR HEREDITARY SIN. 

$123. Peccatum Originis or Originale 138 

$ 124. Romans v. 12-19 139 

$ 125. Original Depravity 141 

$ 126. Undeniable Facts 141 

$ 127. Race Solidarity 142 

$ 128. Arminianism 142 

III. DOGMA OF ORIGINAL SIN. 

$ 129. Substance of the Dogma Common 143 

$ 130. Against Pelagiantsm 144 

$131. Augustinianism 144 

$ 132. Semi-Pel agianism 145 

$133. Calvinistic and Lutheran Churches 145 

$ 134. Arminian Methodism 146 

$135. Confessional Differences 146 

$136. Literature 150 



CONTENTS. IX 

BOOK II. 

Doctrines of Redemption. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

Page 

$137. Incarnation: Three Elements.. 153 

$ 138. Uniqueness of the Person of Christ 154 

$ 139. Equal Importance of Each Element 155 

I. DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY IN SCRIPTURE. 

$ 140. Old and New Method of Proof 155 

$141. The Divine Name Given to Christ 156 

$ 142. Passages Implying Christ's Possession of the Divine Na- 
ture 158 

$ 143. Christ the Son of God 162 

$ 144. Christ the Lord 163 

$ 145. Christ Preexistent 164 

$ 146. Divine Acts 165 

$147. Unique Claims and Position of Christ 165 

II. INFERENCES FROM THE DOCTRINE. 

$148. Unity of Christ's Person 167 

$149. Christ's Absolute Sinlessness 168 

$150. Christ's Human Nature Impersonal 170 

III. DOGMA OF CHRIST'S PERSON. 

$ 151. Universally Received 173 

$ 152. Errors Rejected 174 

$153. Recapitulation: Ephesians i. 10 174 

$ 154. arianism 175 

$155. Apollinarianism 175 

$ 156. Nestorianism 176 

$157. eutychianism 177 

$ 158. Creed of Chalcedon 177 

$159. The Anthanasian Creed 178 

$160. monophysitism, monothelitism, and adoptianism 178 

$ 161. Relation of the Incarnation to Sin ISO 

$162. Socianianism... 181 

$ 163. English Arianism 181 

$164. Lutheran Christology: Communicatio Idiomatum 182 

$ 165. Resulting Questions 183 

$ 166. Modern Kenotists 184 

IV. THE TTVO STATES OF THE INCARNATION. 

$167. The State of Humiliation 186 

$168. The State of Exaltation 186 

$169. Resurrection, Ascension, Session 187 

$ 170. Literature 188 



X CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER IX. 

DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT, 

Pagk 

$171. Prophet, Priest, and King 1S9 

§ 172. The Ideal Prophet 189 

§ 173. The Ideal Priest 190 

$ 174. The Ideal King 190 

§175. Atonement: Doctrine and Dogma 191 

§ 176. Substitution 191 

I. DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE. 

§ 177. Christ's Death a Sacrifice 193 

§178. Christ's Death a Propitiation 196 

§ 179. Redemption 196 

$ 180. Reconciliation 197 

II. DOGMA OF ATONEMENT. 

§ 181. Sacrifice for Sin 199 

§ 182. Why No Universal Dogma 201 

§ 183. Common Essentials 202 

§184. The Divine Character 203 

§ 185. The Just for the Unjust 204 

§ 186. Cautions 206 

§ 187. A Salutary Change 207 

§ 188. Moral Force of Atonement; 208 

§189. Mediaeval Aberrations 208 

III. OTHER DIVERGENT THEORIES. 

§190. Theories Denying Godward Effect 210 

§ 191. Early Socinianism 212 

§ 192. Bushnell's Theory 212 

§193. The Mystical Theory 214 

§194. Dr. Campbell's View 215 

§ 195. F. W. Robertson's View 217 

§ 196. Incarnation and Redemption Coincident.. 218 

§ 197. Back to the Fathers 220 

§198. The Governmental Theory 222 

§ 199. General Points 223 

§200. Literature 224 

IV. UNIVERSAL EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 

§201. Calvinism and Arminianism 225 

§202. Augustinian Predestination 225 

CHAPTER X. 

THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION. 

§ 203. Subjective Blessings 227 

§204. augustinianism, pelagianism, arminianism.. 228 

§205. predestinarianism 229 

§206. Conversion 231 



CONTENTS. XI 

I. CONDITIONS OF SALVATION. 

Pass 

§207. Repentance and Faith 231 

$208. Saving Faith 232 

$ 209. Repentance and Faith of Penitents and Believers 234 

$ 210. Arminian Position 235 

II. BLESSINGS OF SALVATION. 

$ 211. Justification, Regeneration, Sanctification 235 

A.— Justification, 

$212. The Roman Catholic Doctrine 236 

$213. The Protestant Doctrine 238 

$ 214. Scripture Teaching 239 

$215. Forensic Teaching of Romans. 240 

$216. Forensic Atonement and Forensic Justification 241 

$217. Objections to the Protestant Doctrine Considered 242 

$218. Peculiar Calvinistic Phraseology 242 

$219. Faith the Only Condition 244 

$ 220. Scripture Teaching 245 

$221. The Roman Doctrine of Merit 246 

$222. St. James and St. Paul 247 

$ 223. Historical Review 248 

B.— Regeneration. 

$224. Communication of the New Life 251 

$ 225. Scriptural Idea 252 

$226. Adoption 252 

C— Sanctification, 

$227. Introductory 253 

$228. Nature of Sanctification— Negative Side 254 

$229. Positive Side 254 

$230. Is There a Direct Witness of the Spirit? 255 

$ 231. Christian Ethics 256 

$232. Progressiveness of Sanctification 257 

$233. A Practical Danger 258 

$234. Mr. Wesley's View 258 

$235. Entire Sanctification Possible in the Present Life 259 

$236. Mr. Wesley's Own Account of His Teaching 261 

$237. Dr. Mozley's Criticism of Mr. Wesley's Qualifications... 262 

$238. Anglican and Roman Concessions 265 

$239. Sinless Perfection a Non- Wesley an Phrase 265 

$240. Both Gradual and Instantaneous 266 

$ 241. Historical Review of the Doctrine 267 

$212. Position of Methodism 269 

III. THE ASSURANCE OF PERSONAL SALVATION. 

$ 243. General Doctrine 270 

$244. Methodist Teaching of Direct Witness * 270 



Xll CONTENTS. 

Pagb 

$245. Fanaticism Guarded Against 272 

$ 246. Full Assurance 273 

IV. CONDITIONAL PERSEVERANCE. 

$247. Arminianism and Calvinism 273 

$248. Means of Security 274 

CHAPTER XI. 

THE CHURCH. 

$249. Ecclesiastical Definitions 275 

$250. The Term Church in the Nett Testament 276 

$251. Three Types of Church Polity 277 

$252. Arguments For and Against 277 

$ 253. New Testament Teachings 281 

$254. The Place of the Laity 283 

I. NOTES OF THE CHURCH. 

$ 255. The Four Notes 283 

$ 256. Unity 284 

$257. Holiness 285 

$258. Catholicity and Apostolicity 285 

$259. Protestant Interpretation 286 

$260. Unity as Related to Schism and Heresy 287 

$ 261. Protestant Distinction of Visible and Invisible Church.. 289 

II. THEORY OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

$ 262. Two Vital Points 290 

$263. Refutation of the First Point 290 

$ 264. Refutation of the Second Point 291 

$ 265. Weakness of the Whole Theory 293 

$266. Difficulties in the Historical Evidence 293 

$267. Expediency and Utility of Episcopacy 295 

III. CHURCH OFFICES. 

$ 268. References in the Epistles 297 

$269. Presbyters 297 

$270. The Two Presbyterial Functions 298 

$271. Transformation of Presbyter into Priest 299 

$ 272. Deacons 302 

$ 273. Deaconesses 303 

$274. Free Scope of Scripture 303 

$275. The Communion of Saints 304 

IV. WORSHIP— THE LORD'S DAY. 

$ 276. Definition 306 

$277. Institution of the Sabbath 306 

$278. Christian Change of the Day 307 

$279. Divine Authority of the Lord's Day 308 



CONTENTS. Xlll 

V. THE TWO SACRAMENTS. 

A,— Scripture Doctrine. 

Pack 

§2S0. The Two Rites 308 

$231. The Term Sacrament 309 

§282. Circumcision and the Passover 309 

§283. Baptism: Institution and Apostolic Practice 311 

§284. Significance of the Ordinance 311 

§285. Assumption of the Christian Name 313 

§2S6. Baptismal Regeneration 314 

§287. John hi. 5 Considered 315 

§288. Titus hi. 5 315 

§ 289. Cases in the Acts 316 

§ 290. Practice of Christ and the Apostles 317 

§ 291. Infant Baptism 317 

§292. Benefits 318 

§293. Mode of Baptism 319 

§291. The Lord's Supper 321 

§295. Passover and the Supper Both Commemorative 321 

§ 296. Significance of the Lord's Supper 323 

§297. Not a Necessary Channel of Grace 324 

§298. Renewal of Christian Profession 325 

B.— Dogma of the Sacraments, 

§299. Three Types of Doctrine 325 

§ 300. The Roman Doctrine 326 

§ 301. The Lutheran Doctrine 327 

§302. The Reformed Doctrine 327 

§303. Baptism: The Roman View 329 

§304. The Lutheran View '330 

§ 305. The Reformed View 330 

§306. The Lord's Supper: The Roman Doctrine 332 

§307. Substance and Accidents 333 

§ 308. Sole Scriptural Authority Alleged 335 

§ 309. Growth and Consequences of the Roman Dogma 336 

§310. The Lutheran Doctrine 342 

§311. The Reformed Doctrine 343 

§312. The Five Additional Roman Sacraments 346 

§313. Literature 347 



CHAPTER XII. 
THE LAST THINGS. 

I. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 

^814. Sheol and Hades 34S 

& 315. Old Testament Doctrine 349 

^316. Incompleteness of Hades 350 

S 317. Purgatory 351 



XIV CONTENTS. 

II. CHRIST'S SECOND COMING. 

J»A6B 

$ 318. Scripture Teaching 352 

$ 319. Preceding Events 353 

$ 320. Apostolic Expectation 353 

$ 321. Premillenarianism 354 

$322. The Theory Materialistic 355 

$323. Historical 355 

$324. Refutation .. 356 

III. THE GENERAL RESURRECTION. 

$325. The Church and Bible Doctrine 357 

$ 326. Nature of the Resurrection Body 358 

$ 327. Lutheran Emphasis 359 

IV. THE LAST JUDGMENT. 
$328. The New Testament Doctrine 359 

V. ETERNAL LIFE AND DEATH. 

$329. Blessedness of the Righteous 360 

$ 330. Eternal Punishment 362 

$331. Matthew v., xviii., and Mark ix 363 

$ 332. Hades in Luke xvi 363 

$333. Other Sayings of Christ 364 

$334. Tenor of Christ's Teaching 365 

$335. Tenor of Scripture 366 

$336. Death and Destruction 368 

$ 337. Figure and Metaphor 370 

$ 338. A Few More Examples 371 

$339. Fate of the Heathen 372 

$340. Difficulties and Mysteries 373 

$341. Conclusion 374 

$342. Other Theories: Probation After Death 376 

$343. Universalism 376 

$344. Annihilation or Conditional Immortality 378 

$345. Note on Significance of Eternal 381 

$346. Literature 385 



EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION. 



The interest of the Christian Church in dogmatic 
systems is perennial. And of necessity this is so. 
All statements of doctrine are, in the nature of the 
case, pervaded more or less with apologetic and po- 
lemic elements specially adapted to the times in which 
they are set forth. For the construction of a system 
involves definition, discussion, vindication, and de? 
fense. And the end of the whole is irenical — a rea- 
soned, if not a conquered, peace. 

This peace continues until new doubts, new difiL 
culties, new problems, from new points of view, are 
raised by the spirit of the age. To every civiliza- 
tion, oriental or occidental; to barbarous and en- 
lightened ages; to all degrees of ignorance and cul- 
ture, through nineteen centuries and in every conti- 
nent, Christianity has presented an ever varying and 
yet solid and invincible front. St. Paul was the 
apostolic systematic theologian. Origen and Au- 
gustine, with their decided dogmatic tendencies, met 
and satisfied the needs of their times. Later, John 
of Damascus and Peter Lombard, "master of the 
sentences," began the construction, East and West, 
of formal dogmatic systems; and in the Middle Age 
b (xv) 



XVI EDITOR S INTRODUCTION. 

flourished the great scholastics, Alexander Hales, 
Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas, the last of 
whom has had his authority finally confirmed for 
Roman Catholics by Leo XIII. 

Protestantism, immediately on its birth, was com- 
pelled to enter on the same course of development. 
In recent times, some have affected to regret this, or 
have really deemed it unfortunate. But necessity 
knows no law. Whatever errors, derived from their 
Roman antecedents and surroundings, may have in- 
fected the spirit or method or results of the Reform- 
ers, in that age and for that age, as always and 
everywhere, they must theologize. Melanchthon, for 
the Lutherans, issued his Loci Communes in 1521; 
and Calvin, for the Reformed, his marvelous Insti- 
tutes, in 1535. 

Methodism followed Protestantism, as Protest- 
antism followed the older Church. Between 1823 
and 1829 Richard Watson published the first trea- 
tise, and perhaps the greatest, on systematic divinity 
produced among the Wesleyan Methodists: it is not 
unworthy of comparison with Calvin's work of the 
same title, and in England it stood alone until 
the appearance of Dr. William Burt Pope's Com- 
pendium of Christian Theology. In America the 
Methodist Episcopal Church has furnished the 
works on Systematic Theology of Dr. Miner Ray- 
mond, and the vigorous and incisive Dr. John Miley; 



EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION. XVU 

while in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
Dr. Thomas N. Ralston has written his excellent 
Elements of Divinity, and Dr. Thomas O. Sum- 
mers his Systematic Theology. As the sub-title 
of the last mentioned work indicates, it is based on 
the Twenty-five Articles of Religion, received among 
all Methodists. It is, indeed, the only exhaustive 
critical, historical, and dogmatic commentary on the 
Articles in existence, and, as such, has a present mis- 
sion of usefulness for Ecumenical Methodism, which, 
with some revision of the work, may become perma- 
nent. 

Occasionally there comes a period of revolt against 
doctrinal religion: at such times we are likely to 
hear of the creed! ess Christ and undogmatic Chris- 
tianity. And it may be conceded at once that the 
ability to understand, explain, and defend the Chris- 
tian system is not a condition of the saving appro- 
priation of its benefits. A correct intellectual ap- 
prehension of truth will always be found, however, 
to aid rather than to smother devotion; to deepen and 
quicken religious peace and joy in proportion to the 
increased sense of security which comes with a knowl- 
edge of the reasons of the faith and the futile oppo- 
sition of its adversaries. But, when religion drops 
entirely from the intellect to the feelings — from the 
head to the heart, to use a popular but convenient 
distinction — the rejecters and objectors begin again 



XV111 EDITOR S INTRODUCTION. 

their hard questions, their criticisms, and their de- 
mands for rational explanation, until somebody must 
make answer. Thus it has been from the time of 
Arius and Athanasius to this day, and so it is likely 
to continue to the end. The opposer and unbeliever, 
the infidel, the agnostic, and the heretic, compel the 
closer statement and the severer defense of Christian 
truth: for the bad theology which emanates from 
these sources the Church undertakes to substitute 
good theology. For no considerable period can the 
invertebrate theology stand alone. The choice is not 
between theology and no theology, but between good 
and bad theology; the good laying under contribu- 
tion every resource of science and philosophy, nature 
and history, reason and revelation, that men may 
know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth; to the end that the truth may make them free. 
The following work is a most satisfactory present 
tation of our Methodist theology; within the limits 
the author has set himself it would be difficult to find 
a better. Mr. Banks, as is evident from his pages, 
was a pupil of Dr. Pope's,^ of whose Compendium 
of Christian Theology and Higher Catechism of 
Theology American editions have been published. 
This proficient pupil now occupies the post of theo- 
logical tutor in one of the chief institutions of the 
Wesleyan Methodists, where, with abundant scholar- 
ship and proper freedom and independence, he per- 



EDITOR S INTRODUCTION. XIX 

petuates the traditions o£ Methodist orthodoxy de- 
rived from Pope and Watson, Fletcher and Wesley. 

The pages herewith presented to the reader suffi- 
ciently witness that Mr. Banks is a man of wide cul- 
ture, genial dogmatic and literary sympathies, and 
ripe theological scholarship. He has compressed 
into this small volume an amount of clearly stated 
and vigorously argued theological thought that seems 
almost incredible. The author's power of succinct 
and luminous statement and cogent argument has, 
with his careful and wide reading, resulted in one of 
the best treatises possible within so narrow a com- 
pass. 

The older or primitive theology of Methodism has 
evidently not lost its influence with the present gen- 
eration of theologians among the Wesleyans in En- 
gland, if Pope and Banks are to be taken as exam- 
ples. Nor has it among theologians of the first 
rank in America, if Miley and Raymond, Ralston 
and Summers are to be admitted to that class. 
Methodist divinity must be preeminently a theology 
of Christian experience; and along the whole length 
of the Spirit's shining path in a poor human heart, 
from prevenient grace to perfect love, Methodism is 
obliged to pass in her dogmatic systems as well as in 
her hymn books and devotional literature. On this 
path it is reassuring to find the entire company of 
constructors of dogmatic systems in Ecumenical 



XX EDITOR S INTRODUCTION. 

Methodism — Watson and Pope and Banks; Miley 
and Kaymond; Ralston and Summers — keeping un- 
broken rank and step as the noble column moves along 
the King's highway. Mr. Banks's work will be found 
to be absolutely clear of Antinomian, Zinzendorfian, 
Romish, and Calvinistic heresies on sanctification. 

While Mr. Banks's capital book is constructed on 
the main lines of Methodist orthodoxy, we have not 
discovered in the author any indisposition or any in- 
capacity to think for himself, or any lack of scholarly 
equipment for the task which he has brought to so 
successful an issue. We call especial attention to 
his carefully and uniformly observed distinction 
between biblical and dogmatic theology. Dogmatic 
theology is, after all, but a human science of divine 
things; correct and exhaustive exegesis, covering 
the whole word of God, and nothing else, furnishes 
its enduring divine foundations. The work consti- 
tutes an admirable first book in divinity for theo- 
logical students and young ministers; and perhaps 
some of our older preachers and theologians might 
use it advantageously in stirring up their pure 
minds by way of remembrance. The order and 
treatment of the topics, as well as the essential mat- 
ter of the doctrines, also correspond closely to the 
fuller discussions of Summers's Systematic Theolgy, 
to which this book becomes an easy and natural in- 
troduction. 



EDITOR S INTRODUCTION. XXI 

The work of the editor has been done on the 
same lines and according to the same principles 
which controlled and guided him in the preparation 
of Summers's Systematic Theology for the press 
now nearly ten years ago. His aim has been to 
arrange and display the matter perspicuously and 
luminously; to this end it has been carefully dis- 
tributed into Books, Chapters, Parts, and Sections, 
to all of which it has been the editor's aim to 
prefix pertinent and suggestive titles, these titles 
being finally gathered up into an exhaustive ana- 
lytical table of contents. In this work, the ex- 
isting divisions of the author have, of course, been 
utilized; but a comparison of this edition with the 
English text from which it is printed will show how 
largely the titles have been increased, and how much 
more readily the eye and reason of the student will 
catch the salient outlines of the discussion. All of 
the editor's additions, both in the text and in the 
footnotes, have been inclosed in square brackets, 
and, with a few exceptions of very brief insertions, 
have been signed with the initials, "J. J. T." 

Jno. J. Tigert. 

Nashville, Tenn., January 27, 1897. 



INTRODUCTION. 

I. General Principles* 
II. General Facts. 

. (i) 



A Manual of Christian Doctrine. 



CHAPTER I. 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 



$1. Definition of Christian Theology— $2. Science— $3. A Science 
of Theology Legitimate: Its Materials— $4- Usefulness of 
Theology— $5. How Far Contained in Scripture: Its Technical 
Terms— $6. Distinction of Doctrine and Dogma— $7. Contrasts 
of Theological Systems— $8. Theology Inductive— §9. Varying 
Evidence for Physical, Historical, and Spiritual Truth— 
$10. Intuitive, Demonstrative, and Probable Truth— §11. Chris- 
tian Evidences Cumulative— $ 12. But Not Compulsory— $ 13. Why 
Rejected by Many— $ 14. Unity of Theology— $ 15. Connection of 
Theory and Practice— $16. The Body of Common Truth. 

J 1. Definition of Christian Theology. 
Christian Theology may be briefly defined as the 
science of the Christian religion. The word itself is 
a definition, meaning " discourse about God/' a 
phrase enlarged in early days into "discourse about 
God and divine things." 1 There is a sense in which 
every doctrine refers to God. 2 Dr. Pope's defini- 
tion is: "The science of God and divine things, based 
upon the revelation made to mankind in Jesus 
Christ, and variously systematized within the Chris- 
tian Church." 3 Dr. Hodge's is substantially the same : 

1 2,6yoc wept tov 6eov ml irepl ruv Osiuv. 2 The term Theology is 
sometimes used, as by Hodge, to denote the doctrines relating 
specifically to the divine existence, nature, and attributes. 
3 Comp. Theol. i. 3. 

(3) 



4 INTRODUCTION. 

"The exhibition of the facts of Scripture in their 
proper order and relation, with the principles or 
general truths involved in the facts themselves." 1 

\ 2. Science. 
Here all turns upon the term "science." By sci- 
entific knowledge is meant systematic, reasoned 
knowledge — i. e., not merely the general knowledge 
which suffices for practical life, but such knowledge 
of the causes, relations, and laws of things as reason 
demands. In every other sphere man is not con- 
tent with noting and registering facts as they are 
presented to observation, but seeks to reduce them 
to order and understand their inner connection. 
The result of this process is science. 

\ 3. A Science of Theology Legitimate: Its Materials, 
A process that is universally regarded as legiti- 
mate, and indeed inevitable, everywhere else, cannot 
be wrong in the religious life. Its legitimacy can 
only be contested on the ground that theology does 
not deal with facts ; in other words, that it is a mere 
collection of fancies and illusions, having no basis 
of reality. Is it so? The objects with which the- 
ology deals are the contents of the Christian con- 
sciousness, the belief in God, sin, redemption, im- 
mortality. This Christian consciousness or experi- 
ence is too widespread to be explained away as mere 
fancy or illusion. Every fact with which theology 
deals is present explicitly or implicitly in the experi- 
ence of every Christian. And but for the imperfec- 
tion of Christians, and the difficulty of interpreting 

1 Syst. Theol. i. 19. 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 5 

tlieir experience, we might take it as the quarry 
from which to draw the materials of theology. But 
no such objections apply to Scripture, to which ev- 
ery Christian without exception appeals, and of 
which he is the product and reflection (1 Peter i. 23). 
The perfect Christian experience, with all that it 
implies, the complete course of revelation of which 
each individual believer is the outcome, is found 
there. Scripture, then, is to theology what outward 
nature is to physical science; what the mind and its 
operations are to mental science. It supplies the 
materials, the facts or phenomena, which theology 
uses. 

I 4. Usefulness of Theology. 

The usefulness of theology is as little open to 
dispute as its legitimacy. It is necessary, not to or- 
dinary Christians, but to Christian teachers and ad- 
vocates. It is neither necessary nor possible that 
everyone should be a lawyer, doctor, engineer. But 
everyone w T ho aspires to one of these professions 
must have more than the empirical knowledge which 
suffices for ordinary life. Times like ours are the 
last in which Christian teachers can afford to dis- 
pense with accurate and complete knowledge. 

§ 5. How Far Contained in Scripture : Its Technical 
Terms, 

There is, then, as little or as much theology in 
Scripture as there is science in nature. The ma- 
terials are there, nothing more. Yet while it is 
true that all theology, like all science, is human and 
artificial, the order and laws which it formulates 
are all latent in the facts. It is only the form or 



b INTEODUCTION. 

expression that is human. We see a striking exam- 
ple of this in the technical terms which abound in the- 
ology. Such terms are a necessity in the framing of 
definitions. They save time, secure precision, and 
often exclude error. Objections to terms like Trin- 
ity, nature, person, homoousion, are at bottom objec- 
tions to the doctrines which they bring to a point. 1 

I 6. Distinction of Doctrine and Dogma. 
A conventional but useful distinction, which we 
must ever bear in mind, is the one between doctrine 
and dogma. By the former we understand the sys- 
tematized teaching of Scripture on any given sub- 
ject; by the latter, the form which the doctrine has 
assumed as the result of development. In this way 
Biblical Theology and Dogmatic Theology arise. 
Every dogma is more or less a theory in the right 
sense — i. e., a statement embodying the implications 
and giving the rationale of the doctrine. Thus, there 
is both a doctrine and a dogma of every article of 
the Christian faith — the Trinity, Christ's Person, 
Atonement, Justification. It is in the field of dogma 
that the chief differences of the Christian w r orld are 
found. Theological systems, creeds, and confes- 
sions express these differences. In the field of doc- 
trine there is substantial unity. 

$ 7. Contrasts of Theological Systems. 
The differences and antagonisms of theological 

1 It is not only non-Christians who object to the technicalities 
of theology. Well-meaning but thoughtless Christians do the 
same. They might as well propose to abolish astronomy, geol- 
ogy* physical geography. 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 7 

systems are often used to disprove the scientific 
character of theology. "Contrast," it is said, "this 
Babel of opinions with the grand unity of scientific 
teaching." One reply is that differences of Chris- 
tian belief are grossly exaggerated, often by friends, 
always by foes. In times of controversy, especially 
like the Keformation, the points at issue inevitably 
throw the points held in common into the shade. 
We should be the last to minimize the differences 
between Eomanism and Protestantism, or even be- 
tween Calvinism and Arminianism, yet few realize 
the extent of the fundamental unity lying behind 
these differences. Again a fairer comparison would 
be, not between theology and physical science, but 
between the former and mental science, where the 
subjects are in closer affinity. But where is the 
unity of mental and moral philosophy? The schools 
of Christian thought are certainly not more numer* 
ous than the schools of mental philosophy. Every 
great thinker is variously interpreted by different 
disciples. Nay, even in physical science, when we 
leave facts for theories — i.e., doctrine for dogma — w r e 
find as little unity as in the theological world. Note 
the different theories in geology and related sciences. 
Such differences are inevitable from the constitution 
of the human mind, from the w T ealth and many- 
sidedness of truth, and from the necessity of some- 
times giving prominence to a peculiar truth or as- 
pect of truth. And inevitable differences are in- 
nocent. 

\ 8. Theology Inductive. 

The scientific character of theology being admit- 



8 INTRODUCTION. 

ted, the most important rule of procedure in it is 
that the induction of facts, which forms the basis 
of teaching, should be complete. Every error in 
doctrine has arisen from the neglect of this rule. 
Every heresy, from the earliest to the latest, is the 
exaggeration or distortion of some one side of the 
truth to the neglect of other sides. 

\ 9, Varying Evidence for Physical, Historical, and 
Spiritual Truth. 

The test of the sufficiency of evidence is, Is it the 
best of the kind appropriate to the subject? Phys- 
ical truth must be established by experiment; his- 
torical, by testimony; spiritual, by the interroga- 
tion of consciousness, reason, and moral sense. To 
attempt to transpose any of these means of proof 
is folly. And yet some writers against Christianity 
appear to wish to do so. At least they demand 
better and stronger evidence than the best and 
strongest possible in the case. The disposition, ob- 
servable in our days, to demand mathematical cer- 
tainty for matters of religious belief is due to the 
prominence given to physical science. Exclusive 
dealing with subjects of physical science insensibly 
begets a craving for the same degree of certainty in 
other fields. Menoverlooktheimportantfieldsof con- 
duct in which any such certaintyis out of the question. 

§ 10. Intuitive, Demonstrative, and Probable Truth. 

All truth may be classed as intuitive, demonstra- 
tive, and probable. The test of the first is that it is 
self-evident, it neither needs nor is capable of proof. 
Let anyone try to give a reasoned demonstration 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES. tf 

of an axiom of Euclid. Truths coming under this 
head, though the foundation of all other truth, are 
comparatively few in number and abstract in nature. 
Demonstration, like intuition, gives absolute cer- 
tainty, but does so by means of a course of reason- 
ing. The conclusion of a geometrical theorem or 
problem is as certain as an axiom, but it is reached 
by way of proof. Demonstrated knowledge covers 
a wider area than the former kind; yet its extent is 
limited. It relates chiefly to the physical world. 
There is no doubt a wonderful charm in the certain- 
ties of mathematical processes. Their peril is that 
they beget impatience with every other kind of cer- 
tainty. When we speak of the certainty attainable 
in every other field as amounting to probability, we 
use the term in a restricted sense. In popular us- 
age the word "probability" suggests an element of 
doubt. But this is not a necessary element. I have 
no doubt that there is such a city as Rome, or that 
Julius Csesar lived and fought, and yet my con-* 
viction only amounts to probability. Unlike the 
two other kinds of certainty, probability, as Butler 
points out, has endless diversity of degree, ranging 
from the lowest presumption to the highest moral 
certainty, according to the evidence. If the testi- 
mony by which facts of past history or present oc- 
currence are made known to me fulfills every test 
applicable to testimony, my certainty of conviction 
as to the truths of the facts is as good for this sphere 
as that of intuition or demonstration is for other 
spheres. Testimony is the ground of faith and ac- 
tion in nine-tenths of the affairs of life. In matters 



10 INTRODUCTION. 

of health, education, business, law, polities, morals, 
any other kind of certainty is impossible, and men 
never dream of asking for any other. The essential 
bases of Christianity consist of historical facts, ver- 
ifiable by historical evidence, and by historical evi- 
dence only. The Christian case is that the evidence 
for Christianity is incomparably stronger than that 
for facts of experience and history which no sane 
man ever dreams of doubting 

§ 11. Christian Evidences Cumulative. 
The feature of the Christian evidences which 
gives them this high degree of certainty is their 
cumulative character. Scarcely any article of the 
Christian creed, perhaps none, rests on a single line 
of argument; it is the goal of several converging 
lines. In legal cases, circumstantial is often more 
convincing than direct evidence. In the same way 
Christian faith appeals to different witnesses — his- 
tory, man's moral nature, living experience. The 
undesigned coincidence of such various and inde- 
pendent witnesses is conclusive to a fair mind. 
This feature also meets the case of different natures 
and generations. One is more impressed by the his- 
torical, another by the moral. In the last century 
the battle of faith and unbelief was fought on the 
ground of history and reason; the battle now turns 
more on the verdict of conscience. 

\ 12. But Not Compulsory. 
Probably the reason why some demand higher 
than moral certainty for religious faith is the im- 
portance of the subject. It seems unbecoming for 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 11 

such great truths and such tremendous issues to 
rest on anything less than absolute certainty. Still 
we cannot go against facts and the nature of things. 
And the seeming disadvantage is not without com- 
pensation. Were religious certainty absolute, faith 
would be as compulsory in the religious as in the 
physical sphere. There would be as little room for 
the play of choice and the manifestation of character 
in one as in the other. In a w T ord, faith would cease 
to be a moral act altogether. Whatever intellec- 
tual discipline may be found in the study of mathe- 
matical and physical truth, moral discipline is ab- 
sent, moral emotion and enthusiasm are dormant, 
the wishes and inclinations of the inquirer form no 
factor in the case. On the other hand, where the 
conclusion depends on an overplus of probability, 
our attitude to the conclusion will insensibly influ- 
ence our treatment of the evidence. Religious in- 
quiry has always acted as a test of character. As 
men use or abuse their freedom, it becomes a step- 
ping-stone or a stumbling-block to salvation (Luke 
ii. 34). 

? 13. Why Rejected by Many. 

The probable character of Christian evidence ex- 
plains the fact of its rejection by many. It would 
be difficult to explain the rejection of self-evident 
or demonstrated truth. Moral willfulness or per- 
versity can scarcely be alleged in all cases. We 
grant that, even taking into account the point now 
under consideration, the vast amount of unbelief 
is staggering at first sight. Why should there be 
so much more skepticism in religion than in history, 



12 INTRODUCTION. 

where the evidence is of the same kind, but far less 
in degree? The explanation is to be found in the 
difference of the interests at stake. Whether I be- 
lieve in the facts of Roman and Greek history or not 
will make no difference in my life. But acceptance 
of Christianity involves the acceptance of a new 
law of life, a revolution of thought and practice 
of the most far-reaching kind. It is evident that 
where this consequence is disliked some reason will 
be sought for avoiding it. If the practical issues 
were the same in the other case, historical infidels 
would be plentiful enough. 

The mysteriousness of Christian doctrine is less 
objected to now than formerly. The material uni- 
verse, history, human nature and life, natural re- 
ligion, are seen to be no longer the simple things 
they were once thought to be in contrast with reli- 
gion. Science does little more than arrange and 
connect facts; questions of nature and mode are as 
inscrutable as ever. The growth of trees, the mu- 
tual influence of mind and matter, to say nothing 
of the nature of either, are as mysterious as mira- 
cles. Yet ignorance in one class of questions does 
not invalidate knowledge in another. Knowledge is 
real and trustworthy as far as it goes. Our knowl- 
edge and ignorance relate to precisely the same class 
of questions in religious faith as in other spheres. 
Jn a word, we apprehend what we cannot compre- 
hend ( yvwcris, liriyvoycns. ) 1 

1 See Dr. Mozley, Lectures and Theological Papers, essay on 
Mysterious Truths, p. 108. ""What we deny of God, we know 
in some measure — hut what we affirm we know not; only we 
declare what we believe and adore:" Owen, Works, i. 66. 



GENERAL PKINCIPLES. 13 

1 14. Unity of Theology. 

This results from the unity of the facts to which 
theology refers. Thus the unity is natural, not arti- 
ficial — the unity of a living organism, not of a ma- 
chine. Christianity is a system, not a congeries, of 
doctrines, one or another of which may be removed 
without affecting the rest. The view taken of any 
leading doctrine determines the view taken of the 
rest. The views taken of the seriousness of sin and 
redemption react on each other. If sin be treated 
lightly, no need will exist for a costly remedy. Or, 
if we take low views of Christ's person and nature, 
we shall be driven to a reduced estimate of the evil 
of sin. Thus, Pelagianism and Socinianism always 
go together. Whichever of the two we begin with, 
we end with the other. Arianism involves the deni- 
al of the Trinity. Predestinarianism has far less se- 
rious consequences; still it tells powerfully on the 
place given to personal repentance and faith. So 
again, in Romanist and Protestant systems of theol- 
ogy, there are certain central principles and doc- 
trines which give character to the rest. Accept the 
Romanist theory of the Church, or the Protestant 
doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture, and the re- 
mainder of the system follows. 

\ 15. Connection of Theory and Practice. 
We here see the impossibility of separating the- 
oretical from practical doctrines. All practice rests 
upon some theory, expressed or implied. They are 
tw 7 o sides of the same thing. A one-sided object 
would be a curiosity. We cannot preach repentance 
and forgiveness without having some theory of their 



14 INTRODUCTION. 

nature and their relations to other things. We can 
neither worship Christ nor refuse to worship him 
without holding some doctrine of his nature to jus- 
tify our conduct. The Trinity is the most specu- 
lative doctrine of Christianity, and has raised more 
metaphysical issues than perhaps any other subject 
of inquiry; yet its practical influence on Christian 
thought and life is enormous. Its presence or ab- 
sence makes the difference between two Christiani- 
ties. 

§ 16, The Body of Common Truth. 

The great body of truth held in common by all 
Christian Churches is often oyerlooked. In the 
confession of one God, of the Trinity, of a Divine 
Revelation in Scripture, of the Fall, of the Incarna- 
tion, the Atonement. Pardon and Regeneration, 
future Eternal Awards, the Romanist and Protes- 
tant worlds are united. Without underrating the 
diyergences which exist, we must not forget that 
those diyergences often bear on the light in which 
certain blessings are to be yiewed rather than on the 
fact whether such blessings exist. In both com- 
munions we must distinguish between the common 
Christian element and the distinctively Roman or 
Protestant element. The distinctive doctrines held 
by all sections of Protestantism are such as the Pole 
Sufficiency of Scripture, Justification by Faith, etc. 
The common doctrines are neither Romanist nor 
Protestant, but Christian. Protestantism is often 
called a system of negations, but its negations are 
only of Romanist additions. The distinctiyely Ro- 
manist doctrines are the real negations — i. e., ne- 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 15 

gations of the original Christian doctrines, to which 
the Reformation was a return. The divisions of 
Protestant Churches turn far more on questions of 
polity than of doctrine, and the doctrinal differences 
nowhere relate to essentials. The greatest contro- 
versy is that between Calvinist and Arminian, which 
bears only on a secondary point. The distinctive 
note of Lutheranism is its semi-Eomanist doctrine 
of the Sacraments; of the Reformed bodies, their 
Predestinarian doctrine; of Anglicanism, its epis- 
copal polity; of Independency, its congregational 
system; of Baptists, their views on two points re- 
lating to the sacrament of Baptism; of Methodism, 
its Arminianism and Experimental Theology. Pres- 
byterian Churches are named after the form of 
Church polity peculiar to them; in doctrine they be- 
long to the Reformed side which follows Calvin. 
Independents and Baptists were originally one both 
in Predestinarian creed and congregational polity, 
differing only on the point of Baptism. The Bap- 
tists remain faithful to the creed of Calvin, which 
is for the most part given up by Congregationalism. 



CHAPTER II. 

GENERAL FACTS. 

$17. Peter, Paul, a>*d John— $ IS. Antioch, Alexandria, and North 
Africa— $19. The Three Ecumenical Creeds— $20. Greek and 
Latin Churches— $21. Ecclesiastical Doctrinal Standards— 
$22. Mysticism: and Rationalism— $ 23. History of Theology— 
$24. Departments of Theology— $25. Order of Treatment, 

\ 17. Peter, Paul, and John, 
The Scripture parallel of different theologies is 
found in the difference between the teaching of the 
apostles Peter, Paul, and John. The influence of 
personal temperament on the form of teaching is 
as clearly seen in them as in modern systems. Pe- 
ter has an eve for practical religion chiefly. Paul is 
the logical reasoner and systematizer. John is the 
Seer; he announces dogmatically what he has seen 
by intuition. Not only do they deal with different 
parts of the body of revealed truth, but even in 
expounding the same part they contemplate it on 
different sides and describe it by different terms. 
Here is incontestable proof that variety in form is 
quite consistent with substantive unity. In short, 
the inspired apostles are examples of that practice 
of giving prominence to one truth or aspect of truth 
which lies at the root of many modern differences. 

\ 18. Antioch, Alexandria, and North Africa. 
In post-apostolic days we find marked divergence 
between the types of teaching followed at Antioch, 
Alexandria, and in North Africa respectively. The 
first led the way in the literal, grammatical exe- 
gesis of Scripture. Its sober, rational spirit savors 
(16) 



GENERAL FACTS. 17 

more of the West than of the East. Its chief repre- 
sentatives are Theodore of Mopsuestia, f428; The- 
odoret, f457; and Chrysostom. 1 Alexandria was the 
home of eclectic, philosophical Christianity, the aim 
of which was to reconcile knowledge and faith. Its 
allegorizing interpretation ran to great extremes. 
Its great names are Clement, f220; Origen, f254; 
Athanasius, f373. The North African Churches ex- 
hibit the practical spirit of the West. Cyprian, f 258 ; 
Tertullian, f220; Augustine, f430, are its representa- 
tives. Here again we have differences without op- 
position. 2 

§19. The Three Ecumenical Creeds. 

The substance of the faith of the Church in this 
its undivided period is preserved to us in the three 
Ecumenical Creeds. 3 The Apostles' Creed (so called 
not as written by apostles, but as summarizing their 
teaching) is mainly a compendium of the chief Chris- 
tian facts, apart from theological interpretation. 
Its three divisions are an expansion of the baptismal 
formula. It was undoubtedly meant in a Trinita- 
rian sense, although this sense is not put into words. 
The Nicene Creed 4 (named from the General Council 

1 See Smith's Diet. Christian Biogr. for these and following 
names. 2 On the Schools of Alexandria and Antioch, see Blunt, 
Diet. Theology. 3 Symbol also = creed ; symbol literally = sign, 
compendium. The term is much used in Germany, where sym- 
bolics = history of creeds. 4 First four General Councils: 
Nicaea, 325; Constantinople, 381 ; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451. 
These are received by all orthodox Christendom. The Eoman 
Catholic Church receives 18 General Councils before the Vati- 
can one. See Blunt, Diet. Theology, " Councils," " Creeds," " Ni- 
cene Creed," " Quicunque Vult ." [See, however, Hefele, cited 
in Summers's System. Theology, i. 520, 521, footnote. — J. J. T.] 
2 



18 INTRODUCTION. 

of Nicsea, 325 A.D.), defines the faith of the Church 
respecting the divinity of Christ in opposition to 
Sabellianism and Arianism, but chiefly to the latter. 
The creed was completed at the Council of Constan- 
tinople, 381, by the addition of the qualifying clauses 
in reference to the Holy Spirit. 1 One clause (filioquc) 
was first added by the local synod of Toledo, 589 
A.D., and the Council of Frankfort, 794. The Ath- 
anasian Creed (also called Quicunqne. from its first 
word) doubtless embodies the substance of the teach- 
ing of Athanasius, but is certainly not his w r ork. In 
its present form it is not earlier than the eighth or 
ninth century. The two doctrines defined in it are 
the Trinity and the Incarnation. These creeds are 
far from being a complete summary of the Christian 
faith. The tw T o latter were only meant to define 
the doctrines which were the subject of controversy 
at the time. General Councils did not profess to an- 
nounce new doctrines, but only to define what the 
Church had always understood to be the mind of 
Scripture on particular points. Whether they de- 
fined correctly is for each Church and Christian to 
decide. Romanism holds such Councils to have in- 
trinsic authority — Protestantism, not. "The Three 

1 [What is called the Constantinopolitan or Mceno-Constan- 
tinopolitan Creed did not originate with this Council, however. 
See Hort, Two Dissertations, Diss, ii., and the article of Har- 
nack, in Real-Ency. viii. 212-230. The foundation of the Creed 
was a confession composed by Cyril of Jerusalem. After 451 
the Council of Constantinople was recognized as Ecumenical, 
and by some means, only to be conjecturally explained, Cyril's 
Jerusalem baptismal symbol came to be recognized as its work. 
See Fisher's History of Christian Doctrine (Scribner's, 1896), pp. 
145, 146:— J. J. T.] 



GENERAL FACTS. 19 

Creeds ought thoroughly to be received and be- 
lieved, for they may be proved by most certain war- 
rants of Holy Scripture" (Eng. Art. viii.). " General 
Councils may err, and sometimes have erred, even 
in things pertaining to God" (Art. xxi.). 1 

The Eastern and Western Churches have taken 
different parts in the definition of doctrine. To the 
East, with its fondness for metaphysical subtleties, 
we owe the dogma of the Trinity and the doctrines 
bearing on the nature of the Godhead. The more 
practical genius of the West has busied itself with 
the doctrines of Sin and Redemption. 

2 20. Greek and Latin Churches. 

The first great division in the Church was that 
between the East and West, resulting in the estab- 
lishment of the Greek and Latin Churches. The 
sole doctrinal point involved was the single or dou- 
ble procession of the Holy Spirit. The East, taking 
its stand on the earlier councils and creeds, refused , 
to admit the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed, 
and affirmed the single procession; the West took 
the other side. The lawfulness of image-worship 
and the date of Easter were other subjects of strife, 
the first especially. For images the Greek Church 
substitutes pictures. These were the ostensible 
causes of separation. The more potent cause, how- 
ever, was the rivalry of the two pontiffs of Constan- 
tinople and Rome. The strife was almost as much 
political as ecclesiastical, and the decline of the 
Eastern empire greatly helped the victory of the 

1 Lumby, History of Three Creeds. Swainson, ditto. 



20 INTRODUCTION. 

Roman bishop. It is difficult to fix the exact date of 

the division. In the ninth century the two pontiffs 
had got to the point of excommunicating each other. 
The Greek Church, by its boasted title of " ortho- 
dox/' casts the stigma of heresy on its Roman sister. 
The Roman Church has certainly shown much life 
and energy. 

I 21. Ecclesiastical Doctrinal Standards. 

The Greek Church has added little to the early 
creeds. Its doctrine may be further learned from 
the Confessio Gennadii, 1453; Conf. Orthodoxa, 1643. 

The standards of Roman doctrine are the Canons 
and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 1545-1563, Sess. 
4-7. 13, 14, 21-25; Professio Fidei Tridentina (Creed 
of Pius IV.), 1564; Catechismus Roinanus, 1566, un- 
der Pius V. 1 

The Roman Creeds just mentioned were of course 
subsequent to the Reformation of the sixteenth 
century. The separation from Rome was soon fol- 
lowed by internal divisions within Protestantism 
w T hich found expression in new creeds. The first 
broad division is that between Lutheranism and the 
Reformed Churches which adhered to Calvin. 

The chief Lutheran standards are the Augsburg 
Confession (Augustana). 1530 ? Melanchthon's work, 
presented by the Protestant deputies at the Diet of 
Augsburg to Charles V. as their confession; the 
Apology for the same; also Melanchthon's Formula 

1 Cramp, Text-book of Popery, 2nd ed. 1839, gives accurate 
translations of all the chief doctrinal definitions of the Trent 
Council, and so is an excellent account of the whole system of 
Roman doctrine. Canon Jenkins, Creed of Pius IV. [Consult 
also Schaff 's Creeds of Christendom.— J. J. T.] 



GENEKAL EACTS. 21 

of Concord, 1577; Smalkald Articles, 1537; and Lu- 
ther's two Catechisms, 1529. 

The principal Reformed confessions are Helvetic 
Confession i., 1537; Consensus Tigurinus, 1519; the 
Geneva (1551), Belgic (1562), Gallic (1559), and 
Scotch confessions; Helvetic Confession ii., 1564; 
Formula Consensus Helvetici, 1675; Heidelberg Cat- 
echism, 1562. 

The Scotch Confession was replaced by the West- 
minster Confession, 1643-48, supplemented by the 
two Scotch catechisms. 

The thirty-nine Anglican Articles are drawn from 
Reformed sources, as is evident from Art. xvii. espe- 
cially. 

The earliest formulae of Arminianism are the Re- 
monstrantia, 1610, and the Conf. Remonstrantium, 
1622. 

The Methodist standards are [the Twenty-five Ar- 
ticles formulated by Wesley and the American Meth- 
odists in 1784] Wesley's first fifty -three 1 sermons and 
Notes on New Testament. 

Barclay's Apology informally represents the views 
of the Society of Friends. 

The Racovian Catechism (1605) exhibits the po- 
sition of early Socinianism. 2 

I 22. Mysticism and Rationalism. 
Two other movements outside the sphere of 
creeds, demanding notice, are Mysticism and Ration- 
alism. These represent, not different schools, but 

1 [Sermon 53, being Whiteneld's funeral sermon, is omitted in 
our edition of the standards.— J. J. T.] 2 Winer, Confessions 
of Christendom, p. 8. 



22 INTRODUCTION, 

tendencies of thought present more or less in every 
age. They are exaggerations of truth. Thus, mys- 
ticism insists on the spiritual nature of Christianity 
as a divine life within man, to the neglect of forms 
of creed and worship, and sometimes even of con- 
duct. Its keynote is union, fellowship with God. 
It knows by intuition, and obeys feeling. It thus 
represents a precious truth, for there is a genuine 
mysticism inseparable from living Christianity (Gal. 
ii. 20; John xiv. 23, xvii. 23). Its error lies in the 
neglect of other equally necessary truths, the result 
being that it is in constant danger of falling into 
pantheism. Union with God is pushed to the ex- 
treme of identity. It is impossible to distinguish 
much of the teaching of mysticism from pantheism. 
Yet the better mystics have rendered invaluable 
service to Christianity, especially by keeping up, 
in days of formalism, a witness for spiritual religion. 
Naturally it is in such days that mysticism abounds 
most as a reaction from dead form. So again we 
find the greatest mystics in the Roman Catholic 
Church, whose hard externalism calls forth the pro- 
test of man's spiritual nature. The more spiritual 
genius of Protestantism satisfies man's deeper in- 
stincts, and so obviates the extremes of mysticism. 
Prominent mystics are Erigena, ninth century; 
Eckart, fl329; a Kempis; Tauler, fl361; Behmen, 
fl624; F£n£lon, Madame Guion, William Law. 1 

1 K. A. Vaughan, Hours with the Mystics, 2 vols. Overton, 
Life and Opinions of William Law. Law's Spirit of Prayer is a 
good exposition of Behmen's ideas. Hodge, Syst. TheoL i. 61. 
Blunt, Diet, of Sects, "Mystics;" Diet. Theology, "Mysticism." 



GENEBAL FACTS. 23 

Rationalism is at the other extreme. It lays as 
great emphasis on reason and proof as mysticism 
does on feeling. Reason is the judge and man the 
measure of truth. Miracle, supernatural revela- 
tion, authority in matters of faith, are rejected as 
infringing on the rights or transcending the limits 
of reason. Christianity is reduced to natural reli- 
gion. This tendency exists in endless difference of 
degree from modest "criticism" to stark Deism. 
Modern Rationalism took its rise in England about 
two centuries ago. Lord Herbert, fl648; Toland, 
1696; Hobbes; Shaftesbury, fl773; Collins, fl729; 
Bolingbroke, Tind-al, were among its leaders. From 
England it was carried to France and Germany, 
where it grew unchecked and wrought fearful hav- 
oc. At home it was largely counteracted by apolo- 
gists like Lardner, Paley, Butler, and still more by 
the evangelical revival. 1 

\ 23. History of Theology, 
The history of theology proper may be said to be- 
gin with John of Damascus, eighth century, whose 
Exposition of the Faith is the first attempt at a, 
systematic treatment of Christian doctrine. The 
works of the Fathers merely supply the materials 
for such a treatment. From the days of the Dam- 

1 Hurst, History of Rationalism. Dorner, Protestant Theol- 
ogy, ii. m. Hodge, Syst. Theol. i. 34. Blunt, Diet, of Sects, 
u Rationalists ;" Diet. Theology, "Rationalism." Although 
Blunt's extreme High-churchism often renders him unfair, he 
always gives the essential facts of the case in a very able form. 
Leland, View of Principal Deistical Writers in England. A. S. 
Farrar, Critical Hist, of Free Thought, describes both English 
and Continental Rationalism. 



2-i INTRODUCTION. 

ascene, of Anselui and Bernard, to Peter Lombard 
and Thomas Aquinas, theology sat as queen. The 
name of the mediaeval or scholastic divines is le- 
gion. 1 They borrowed all their material from the 
Fathers, shaping it by the rules of Aristotle's phi- 
losophy. But their want of originality and their 
passion for system and subtle distinctions must not 
blind us to their learning, acuteness, and devotion. 
The Summa Theologice of Aquinas is still a text- 
book of Roman theology. Aquinas died in his forty- 
ninth year (1274 A.D.). Yet the works which he 
found time to write on philosophy, theology, exe- 
gesis, fill from twenty to thirty folios. The tradi- 
tion of Roman Catholic learning is continued by 
Bellarmin, Petavius, and Perrone. The first theo- 
logian of the Reformation was Melanchthon, w T hose 
Loci Communes, published in 1521, ran through eighty 
editions in the author's lifetime, and gave its name 
to countless successors. It is characteristic of the 
practical spirit of the Reformation that Melanch- 
thon's Loci grew out of lectures on the Epistle to the 
Romans, treating the topics there suggested in the 
order in which they occur. Then came the age of 
the "Protestant scholastics" — on the Lutheran side, 
Chemnitz, fl586; Gerhard, 1637; Quenstedt 1688; 
Calov, 1686; Hollaz, 1713— on the Reformed, Calvin. 
fl564; F. Turretine, fl687. Calvin's Institutes is 
the prime authority for Reformed doctrine. Its ar- 
rangement follows the order of the Trinity. Among 
modern continental theologians it may suffice to 
mention Martensen (Christian Dogmatics and Eth- 

1 Blunt, Diet. Theology, "Scholastic Theology/' 



GENERAL FACTS. 25 

ics), Dorner (System of Christian Doctrine), Ooster- 
zee. The old English theology is well worthy of 
study. It is divided into two schools, Anglican and 
Puritan, not unequal in point of learning, although 
different in tendency. Among the former, Hooker, 
Barrow, Jackson, Bull, Waterland, Pearson occupy 
the first place; among the latter, the two Goodwins, 
one Calvinist and the other Arminian, Owen, Howe, 
Baxter. 

Hodge's System of Theology 1 is a learned and com- 
prehensive exposition of Calvinistic (or Augustinian) 
Doctrine. Dr. Pope's Compendium 2 is as able and 
complete a statement of Arminian and Methodist 
teaching. For Methodist theology, however, Wat- 
son's Institutes and Fletcher's works should be still 
consulted, as well as Wesley's principal treatises. 
[Miley's, Raymond's, Summers's, and Ralston's Sys- 
tematic Theologies are America's contributions to 
Methodist theology.— J. J. T.] 

1 24. Departments of Theology, 
a. Biblical Theology presentsthe doctrines of Scrip- 
ture in systematic order, noting their implications 
and connection. It presses Hermeneutics, Textual 
Criticism, Introduction, Archaeology, study of the 
Sacred Tongues, into its service. Biblical doctrine 
is, of course, the basis and starting point of all 
other. 3 6. Historical Theology traces the changes of 
form which doctrine has undergone, and the stages 
by which it has passed into dogma. Church history, 
and especially the History of Dogma and Creeds, 

2 3 vols., T. Nelson. 2 3 vols., T. Woolmer [and Hunt and Ea- 
ton]. 3 Schmid, Weiss, Theology of the N. T., 2 vols. (T. & T. 
Clark). 



26 INTRODUCTION. 

here come into use. 1 c. Systematic or Dogmatic 
Theology is the result of a blending of the two for- 
mer branches, d. Practical Theology deals with 
Homiletics, Pastoral W ork, etc. 2 

I 25. Order of Treatment. 

The subject of Christian theology proper, as of 
Scripture, is Redemption. Every doctrine is a doc- 
trine of Redemption. But this again presupposes 
the truth of certain other doctrines, namely, the Di- 
vine Existence, Divine Revelation in Scripture, Di- 
vine Nature and Attributes, Divine Works of Crea- 
tion and Providence. All these truths are clearly 
anterior and necessary to Redemption, which is a 
special provision for a special need. We must be- 
lieve that God is, and that Scripture is his Word, 
before we can receive its teaching on the subject 
of Redemption. The Divine Nature and Attributes, 
Creation and Providence, would have been what 
they are had no need for Redemption arisen. 

A natural order of discussion therefore is: 1. Doc- 
trines Presupposed — Divine Existence, Divine Rev- 
elation in Scripture, Divine Nature and Attributes, 
Creation and Providence, Sin. 2. Doctrines of Re- 
demption — Incarnation, Atonement, Nature and 
Conditions of Benefits of Redemption, Church and 
Sacraments, Future State. 

1 Neander, History of Christian Dogmas, 2 vols. (Bohn) ; Ha- 
genbach, History of Doctrines, 3 vols. (T. &. T. Clark); Shedd, 
History of Doctrine, 2 vols. (T. & T. Clark) [Sheldon's Histo- 
ry of Christian Doctrine, 2 vols. (Harper) ; Fisher's History of 
Christian Doctrine (Scribner). — J. J. T.]. 2 See Hagenbach's 
Theolodcal Encyclopaedia, translated by Crooks and Hnrst, 
Ne w York : Cave, Introduction to Theology (T. & T. Clark) ; 
Oostersee, Practical Theology. 



BOOK L 

DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

I. The Divine Existence. 

II. Divine Revelation. 

III. The Divine Attributes. 

IV. Creation and Providence. 
V. Sin. 

(27) 



CHAPTER III. 

THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 

$26. Man's Knowledge of God Not Intuitive— $27. A Truth of Reve- 
lation Confirmed by Reason— $28. The Four Arguments— $29. The 
Cosmological Argument: Nature of Causality— $30. The Argu- 
ment: Its Theistic Conclusion— $31. The Eternity of Matter— 
$32. Various Objections Answered— $33. TheTeleological Argu- 
ment— $34. Objection: We Cannot Pass from Art to Nature— $35. 
The Moral Argument— $36. The Ontological Argument— $37. The 
Four Arguments Complementary— $38. Degree of Certainty 
Yielded— $39. Antitheistic Theories— $40. Pantheism— $ 41. Mate- 
rialism— $42. Positivism— $43. Agnosticism— $44. Literature. 

I 26. Man's Knowledge of God Not Intuitive. 
Respecting the way in which man comes to know 
God's existence two view T s are held. One is, that it 
is by intuition ; the other, that it is the result of rea- 
soning. The former view is favored by most of the 
older Christian writers, by German and some Eng- 
lish divines. 1 The strongest argument in its favor 
is drawn from the universal belief in Deity. Such a 
fact, it is said, can only be explained on the suppo- 
sition that the belief is innate and intuitive. But 
looked at more closely, the universal belief is far 
from uniform or free from error. It has not ex- 
cluded polytheism and other still worse mistakes. 
What is the value of an intuition which gives no bet- 
ter idea of its contents? If it is said that such per- 
versions are the result of sin, it is still questionable 
whether even sin could distort a real intuition to 

1 The Germans speak of self-consciousness, world-conscious- 
ness, God-consciousness. To speak strictly, consciousness only 
applies to self. 

(2^ 



30 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

such an extent. Is there any other example of the 
kind? Nor ; again, is the influence of sin a sufficient 
explanation of the existence of atheism, which must 
then be ascribed in every case to perverse teaching 
or a perverse will. A strong objection to the intui- 
tive view is, that where the truth is denied, it makes 
proof impossible, intuitive truth being above proof. 1 
Still less can we conceive the possibility of any truth 
being both intuitive and demonstrative. For this 
reason, we do not understand how adherents of the 
intuitive school can appeal to the usual proofs. 
Moreover, the general theory of innate ideas is no 
longer regarded as covering the same extent of 
ground as formerly. It rather includes abstract 
truths than matters of fact, such as the existence 
even of the Divine Being. 

g 27. A Truth of Revelation Confirmed by Beason. 

On the other hand, the opinion that this great 
truth is the result of reasoning, or even that it comes 
by revelation and is confirmed by reasoning, ex- 
plains all the facts of the case, and is free from the 
objections lying against the former view. The truth 
follows so directly and conclusively from the appli- 
cation of the principle of causality to the world 
around us, that we should expect to find it universal- 
ly present in some form, while, at the same time, 
the very nature of a process of reasoning leaves 
open the possibility of mistake, evasion, and per- 
version. Both atheism and polytheism are better 
explicable on this supposition. If it be said that 
faith in God is never actually the result of reasoning, 

1 See \ 10, ante, Pearson on Creed, vol. i. 25 (Oxford, 1S47). 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE 31 

it may be replied, that as matter of fact sucli faith 
usually comes by instruction, and is verified by rea- 
soning; not to insist that there are implicit, uncon- 
scious acts of reasoning, in which some of the steps 
are left out. This view also leaves the way of argu- 
ment open. When some one asserts, "I have no such 
intuition of God," we are not reduced to impotence. 
When it is said that a doctrine of such magnitude 
ought not to rest on less than absolute certainty, 
we can only repeat that if the evidence is infinitely 
stronger than that which is elsewhere regarded as 
ample, unbelief is left without excuse ; and faith has 
no need to fear. The fact that intuitive truths are 
involved in the proof, and that we so seldom need 
to examine the grounds of our faith, is perhaps the 
reason why the conclusion has come to be regarded 
as itself belonging to this class. 1 

I 28. The Four Arguments. 

The a posteriori argument branches into four parts, 
the cosmological, teieological, moral, and ontolog- 
ical. 
| 29. The Cosmological Argument: Nature of Causality. 

Cosmological, or ^Etiological. This is an argu- 
ment from the mere existence of the world. The 
design argument belongs to the next head. The 

1 Dr. Pope says, Comp. i. 235, God's existence being " innate 
and connate does not mean that this full knowledge is found 
in every mind as an object of consciousness, but that the con- 
stitution of human nature is such that it develops a conscious- 
ness of God when God presents himself, even as it grows up 
into a consciousness of self and of the outer world." The latter 
part of the sentence would apply to the view that our knowl- 
edge of God is provable by reasoning. 



32 DOCTRINES PRESUPrOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

present argument, like the next two, is an applica- 
tion to facts of the law of causality, that every be- 
ginning must have a cause. 1 Is this principle in- 
tuitive, or a generalization from facts? The first 
view is the more probable one, for wherever the 
terms of the proposition are understood it is seen 
to be self-evident. It is universally and necessarily 
true. But even if the principle w T ere regarded as 
a generalization from experience, its certainty would 
scarcely be lessened, for no principle is more abun- 
dantly confirmed by experience. There is no ex- 
ception to its truth. An uncaused beginning is in- 
conceivable, or self-contradictory. The empirical 
or sensational school of thought — Brown, Hume, 
Mill, Bain — define causality as mere invariable an- 
tecedence and sequence, rejecting the notion of ef- 
ficient power or necessary connection. But causal- 
ity includes, more than invariable connection or se- 
quence, which is often present w 7 here causality is 
never thought of. The saying post hoc propter hoc 
illustrates this. True, all that is visible is the con- 
nection — the causal pow r er is interposed by reason 
to explain the connection. But is this an illusion 
or unwarranted conjecture, as empiricists and pos- 
itivists say? Then our nature deceives us; for it 
is at its bidding that we seek a cause for facts, and 
are restless till we have found it. Positivism, in 
absolutely restricting our thought to phenomena, is 
fighting against the oldest and most deeply rooted 
instinct of human nature. It is also universally 

1 Usually stated as " Every effect must have a cause," which 
is tautological. Eightly explained, however, the current phrase 
may be conveniently used. 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 33 

felt that only an intelligent cause is a true cause. 
Mere mechanical causes never satisfy us. The em- 
pirical philosophy would do away with the present 
argument for God and religion, because on its prin- 
ciples we must not ask for any cause whatever of 
the invariable connection into which it resolves cau- 
sality. At the same time, it does away also with 
mind in man, mind being only conceivable as a cause 
of thought. Perhaps it matters less that it does 
away with matter as the cause or subject of phe- 
nomena — all that it leaves being phenomena and 
their relations. 

§30. The Argument: Its Theistic Conclusion. 

Applying, then, the principle of causality to the 
world, the argument runs: Every beginning has a 
cause, the world had a beginning (or, is an effect), 
therefore the world had a cause. Here all turns 
on the second premise. Had the world a beginning? 
Or, is it an effect? Is this view or the opposite one 
the more probable? It is not essential to our argu- 
ment to consider whether the matter itself of the 
world had a beginning or not. Looking at present 
only at the form of the world and its component 
parts, it is quite certain that these forms had a be- 
ginning, or rather many beginnings. It is matter 
of certainty that they are the result of previous 
forms, and these of others, and so on. The world 
and everything in it have taken their present shape 
as the result of previous states. Every atom yet 
discovered is "a manufactured article." A real 
atom is purely hypothetical. We are face to face 
then with a dilemma. Either this process has been 



34 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

going on from all eternity, or there has been a begin- 
ning in a cause adequate to the production of all that 
follows. One of these two conclusions is inevitable. 
The first, we may safely say, is no conclusion at all. 
It simply sends us on in an infinite regress from 
point to point. It may float as a vague possibility 
before the mind, but it has never formed the doc- 
trine of a school, which is sufficient evidence of the 
verdict of the world upon it. The other inevitable 
conclusion is the theistic one. The theistic infer- 
ence, then, does not follow directly from the use of 
the causal principle. It is the remaining alternative 
in a dilemma, the other member of which has been 
ruled out of court. 

\ 31. The Eternity of Matter. 

We have said that we do not need to prove that 
the matter of the world had a beginning. Still it 
is the more probable view, because the alternative 
is the eternity of matter. A cause that is adequate 
to the creation of the form of the world is adequate 
to the creation of its matter, which is thus superflu- 
ous as an independent existence, and excluded by 
the law of parsimony of causes. It would also be 
fatal to the independence of the other cause. As 
to the theory of matter being the cause of all things, 
this would make it the cause of mind. Mind may be 
the cause of matter, but not conversely. 

[There seems to be a lingering notion in the minds 
of most scientific waiters, as well as in those of other- 
people, that there was originally some kind of prim- 
itive, undifferentiated, homogeneous world - stuff. 
This doctrine, which has descended to modern times 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 35 

from some of the earliest and least intelligent spec 
ulations of Greek philosophy, is a very crude one, 
for it assumes the existence of a first material (Trpur-q 
tA.77) possessing no particular qualities, or qualita- 
tively nil, which stands to the various forms of mat- 
ter very much as a tree stands to a bed, a box, a 
desk, or other article fashioned out of it. Out of 
this primitive, qualityless world-stuff the various 
forms of matter as we know it are supposed to have 
been fashioned by a process of differentiation and 
increasing heterogeneity. Being per se, which is no 
sort of being in particular, but all being in general, 
is thus accepted as the taproot of the tree of the 
universe. A mythical product of long-ago exploded 
realism lingers to befog the intellects of speculators, 
or unconsciously to vitiate the results obtained by 
many thinkers who assume some such idea as this 
described above without stopping to clarify or es- 
tablish it. 

It is conceded that no force known to man is capa- 
ble either of annihilating matter or of calling it into ' 
being. As Anaxagoras announced nearly five hun- 
dred years before Christ, "Nothing can ever be said 
to become or depart, but each thing arises through 
the combination, and perishes through the disinte- 
gration of pre-existent things; hence it is more cor- 
rect to call becoming combination and departing 
separation." As far as science teaches, the sum of 
matter now in the universe cannot be increased or 
diminished. But science knows nothing of this prim- 
itive, undifferentiated world-stuff. On the contrary, 
it teaches that there are about sixty-five elements, 
or original, irreducible, and underivable constitu- 



36 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

ents or forms of matter. Matter in the general, or 
that which is only matter, but not some particular 
form or kind of matter, is unknown to experience. 
Every atom of matter known to the physicist or 
chemist is either aluminium, bismuth, chlorine, flu- 
orine, lead, mercury, nitrogen, silver, gold, sulphur, 
zinc, or some other element. So far as science tells 
us, all these must have been present in the primal 
fire-mist with which the nebular hypothesis begins 
the history of the solar and other cosmical systems. 
The argument from this fact is as follows : If the 
material (materials) out of which the world is made 
is not some rough stuff, without any marks of in- 
telligent design upon it, but on the contrary is a 
number of elementary substances, whose combina- 
tion with each other is determined by many precise, 
complex, and stable laws, as exhibited in the multi- 
plied formulae of chemistry, then must these ele- 
ments be described, in the words of an eminent sci- 
entist, as " manufactured articles." Before them 
went a creating power and designing intelligence, 
which (who) stamped upon them the laws of their be- 
ing. Observe: the teleological argument, or argu- 
ment from design, is introduced at this point not to 
perform its own proper service (a use to which it 
will be put later), but to answer the negative pur- 
pose of disproving the eternity of matter. If the 
atom is a manufactured article, it has not existed 
from eternity, but is a product turned out by a man- 
ufacturer. — J. J. T.] 

I 32. Various Objections Answered. 

1. It is said that this argument does not prove 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 37 

the necessity of an intelligent cause, much less a 
moral one. The first cause may be merely mechan- 
ical. But, speaking in a large sense, mind is part 
of the universe. Its cause must be intelligent. The 
most superficial glance also shows that the world 
is a unity, which can only be explained as the result 
of intelligence. The chief argument, however, on 
this point falls under other heads. 

2. It is also alleged that the argument does not 
prove the supposed cause to be infinite. The uni- 
verse, if an effect, is only a finite one, and requires 
only a finite cause. This point also belongs to an- 
other branch of the argument — the fourth. Mean- 
time it may be remarked that one of the most notable 
fruits of science is its revelation of the immeasurable 
vastness and complexity of the universe. A cause 
adequate to the creation of such a system is at least 
practically infinite. 

3. If it be said that the law of causality requires 
a cause for God himself, the reply is that neither in- 
tuition nor experience teaches us that everything 
must have a cause, but only every beginning, every 
event. "Everything must have a cause" is a pure 
assumption, w T hich would lead us back in an infinite 
regress. 

4. Agnosticism asks, "Why come to any decision 
at all? Why not leave everything in suspense?" 
Because such suspense is repugnant to human na- 
ture. And if our nature in compelling us to decide 
is not to be trusted, nothing is to be trusted. Why 
is the agnostic in religion not an agnostic in ques- 
tions of health, business, character, where he has 



38 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

far less certain probabilities to go upon? Consist- 
ency is with the believer, not with the agnostic. 1 

| 33, The Teleological Argument. 
This is the design argument proper, or the argu- 
ment from final causes. Its principle is a form of 
the causal principle. A particular kind of begin- 
ning (or effect) requires a particuar kind of cause. 
It may be put thus: Order or purpose requires in- 
telligence as its cause. 2 Whether this principle is 
intuitive or a generalized experience, its truth is un- 
deniable. Wherever we see purpose accomplished, 
especially by the combination and adaptation of 
means, we know that the purpose is not in the means, 
but in some mind that existed outside of and before 
them. 3 Strictly speaking, there is no design or pur- 
pose in things, but only the marks of design, the de- 
sign being in mind only. Illustration of marks of 
design in the universe is needless. The universe is 
one vast system of means and ends. We see this 

1 Flint, Theism, Lect. iv. ; Bandies, First Principles, p. 25, etc. ; 
Buchanan, Faith in God and Atheism, vol. i.; Pearson on Creed, 
Art. i.; Barrow on Creed, Serm. vi., vii. 2 " Design implies a 
designer," is also tautological. Still the phrase is convenient. 
3 " For myself this obstinate conception occurs again and again, 
that the whole, as it develops 3 ,nd will be developed, in space 
and time, determined all the parts of that whole — which it 
could only do on the supposition that it preexisted in thought — 
the thought, therefore, of some Being capable of so thinking 
and so acting — not thinking or acting as a human being. I 
find this conviction even stronger in me than that which de- 
mands some one permanent being (conscious or unconscious) 
as mere cause of all this Becoming we witness ; though the two 
lines of thought and feeling may easily be harmonized ": W. 
Smith, Gravenhurst, 2d ed. p. 415. 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 39 

alike in the world of the little revealed by the mi- 
croscope, and in the world of the great commanded 
by the telescope. 

I 34. Objection : We Cannot Pass from Art to Nature. 
The fact is admitted by those who reject the argu- 
ment based upon it. These say: "Undoubtedly the 
world is full of marks of design, or of what would 
be such in the works of man. But here the marks 
are deceptive." Why? "Because," it is said, "we 
cannot argue from art to nature. One is no guide 
to the other. That may be true in one sphere which 
is false in the other. We have seen watches made, 
but have not seen a world made." But even on the 
supposition that the law of causality originates in 
experience, is there any w r arrant for the assertion 
that the generalized results of experience are ap- 
plicable only to artificial products? Though tw^o 
and two watches make four watches, do two and two 
trees make five trees? Is it conceivable that this 
should be the case anywhere? The causal princi- 
ple might just as well be restricted to each class of' 
products as to the aggregate. We might just as 
well say that although a watch or bridge, as evi- 
dencing design, must be the fruit of intelligence, 
something that we have never seen in course of mak- 
ing need not be so. In the case of such a proposi- 
tion as "Order is the result of intelligence, and is 
impossible without it," how is the possibility of an 
exception conceivable? What valid reason can be 
given for its restriction? Dr. Flint's view is that 
the theistic position is not an argument from art to 
nature, but an application of the same self evident 



40 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

principle to both; 1 and this is really the true view. 
The construction of watches, etc., is merely an illus- 
tration, not the basis of argument. We have argued, 
however, on the lower view of the caudal principle. 
Everyone, then, who rejects the theistic inference 
holds that although order, adaptation, purpose in 
human works can only be explained by an intelligent 
cause, the same things in nature, on an immensely 
greater scale and of a far more wonderful kind, re- 
quire no such cause. A poor specimen of contriv- 
ance is impossible without intelligence; a miracle 
of what has every appearance of being contrivance 
is possible without intelligence! The atheistic the- 
ory has no explanation of the world, for a mere cat- 
alogue of phenomenal sequences is no explanation. 
There would be -an excuse for atheism or agnosti- 
cism if no key to the mystery of nature were at hand, 
and if it were not a settled rule in other fields to 
argue from the known to the unknown; but when 
the key lies at our feet, and the rule is in common 
use, to refuse to see the key or apply the rule is the 
very height of caprice. 

The modern doctrine of the universal presence of 
law is altogether in our favor. Human geometry 
is a trifle to the geometry of the universe. The move- 
ments of systems and the form of a crystal are de- 
termined with mathematical precision. Were the 
world a chaos instead of a cosmos, we might dis- 
pense with intelligence at its source. This branch 
of the argument has always been felt to be the most 

1 Theism, p. 156. On whole argument see Lect. v., vi.; Har- 
ris, Self-revelation of God, p. 316; Janet, Final Causes, p. 321; 
W. Arthur, Difference Between Physical and Moral Law. 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 41 

conclusive and useful, The field of illustration 
grows with the growth of knowledge. 1 

I 35. The Moral Argument. 
This argument is another application of the causal 
principle. The moral w T orld ? consisting of the laws 
of right to which man is subject, their operations 
and effects, is as real, as orderly and full of purpose, 
as the physical, and can only be explained by a cause 
of the same nature as itself. The chief fact of this 
world is conscience. Our argument is unaffected by 
any theory we form of the nature and origin of con- 

1 Augustine, Conf. x. 6: "Non dubia sed certa conseien- 
tia, Domine, amo te. Percussisti cor meum verbo tuo, et 
amivi te. Et quid est hoc? Interrogavi terrain, 

et dixit:- non sum. Interrogavi mare et abyssos, et respon- 
derunt: non sumus Deus tuus, quaere super nos. Inter- 
rogavi coelum, solem, lunam, Stellas: neque nos sumus 
Deus, quern quaeris, inquiunt. Et dixi omnibus iis, Dicite 
mini de illo aliquid. Et exclamaverunt voce magna: Ipse 
fecit nos. Interrogavi mundi molem de Deo meo. et respon- 
dit mini: Non ego sum, sed ipse me fecit." Augustine then 
interrogates his powers of body and mind with the same 
result. He finds God at last in memory. But how came 
God there? By his own secret but sure self-manifestation. 
"Ubi ergo te inveni, ut discerem te? Neque enim jam eras 
in memoria mea priusquam te discerem. Ubi ergo inveni 
te, ut discerem te, nisi in te supra me? . . . Sero te 
amavi, pulchritudo tarn antiqua et tarn nova; sero te aman! 
Et ecce intus eras, et ego foris, et ibi te quaerebam; et in 
ista formosa, quae fecisti, deformis irruebam. Mecum eras, 
et tecum non eram. Ea me tenebant longe a te, quae, si 
in te non essent, non essent. Vocasti et clamasti, et rupisti 
surditatem meam. Coruscasti, splenduisti, et fugasti caeci- 
tatem meam. Fragrasti, et duxi spiritum, et anhelo tibi. 
Gustavi, et esurio, et sitio. Tetigisti me, et exarsi in pacem 
tuam." 



42 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

science. 1 However we define or derive it, it stands 
before us as a fact of unique character. It an- 
nounces the supreme distinction of right and wrong, 
commands one, forbids the other, praises if we obey, 
condemns if we disobey. Its praise is sweeter, its 
condemnation heavier than any outward praise or 
blame. Still conscience does not make, it simply 
announces and administers, moral law. That law 
is independent of man, unvarying from age to age. 
How can it be pretended that the moral law is of 
man's making, when it governs and often condemns 
him? Would he spontaneously set up a judge, ac- 
cuser, and tormentor in his own breast? He no 
more determines w T hat shall be the law of his moral 
life than he determines the conditions of his phys- 
ical life. Moreover, the existence of purpose, adap^ 
tation of means to ends, is as certain in this as in the 
material world. The beauty of a virtuous life, the 
rewards and punishments of moral government, the 
motives urging to good and dissuading from evil, 
are as clear proofs of intelligence as anything in 
visible nature. The law T s are as inexorable, the is- 
sues as certain, in one case as in the other. The 
existence, then, and order of the moral world not 
merely demand an author, but reveal his character, 
declare him to be the friend of righteousness and the 
foe of w r rong. 

This argument has always weighed much with 
thoughtful minds. Sophocles speaks of "the un- 
written law r s of God that know not change; they 
are not of to-day or yesterday, but live forever.'' 

1 "Conscience is a man's judgment of himself according 
to the judgment of God of him": Ames on Conscience, 1643. 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 43 

Cicero says of the moral law: "It is not one thing 
at Rome, another at Athens, one thing now and an- 
other in former or future ages, but in all ages and 
nations it is, has been, and will be one and ever- 
lasting." Kant was content to rest the whole ar- 
gument for God on the moral law. Two things, he 
said, never ceased to call forth his wonder, the order 
of the starry heavens and the order of the moral 
world. Butler says: "Had conscience might as it 
has right, it would rule the world." "All's love, yet 
all's law," is Browning's dictum. St. Paul speaks 
of "the law written in their hearts." 1 

I 36. The Ontological 2 Argument. 

If the previous arguments are good, they have 
proved the existence of a great First Cause, power- 
ful, wise, and just. We have, however, the ideas 
of infinity, eternity, of necessary as opposed to con- 
tingent existence, of perfect goodness. No matter 
whence or how we obtain these ideas, we have them. 
They must either be affirmed or denied of the Crea- 
tor, whose existence has been ascertained. Infinity 
and finitude, absolute and dependent existence, be- 
ing contraries, one or other of them must be predi- 
cable of every being, the divine included. The only 

1 Wace, Christianity and Morality, pp. 189, 205, 221; Flint, 
Theism, Lect. vii., viii.; Lacordaire, God, Conferences (Chap- 
man and Hall) ; McCosh, Method of Divine Government, is 
most powerful under this head, worthy of being regarded as 
a continuation and expansion of Butler's Analogy. 2 Often 
called a priori, as by Dr. Flint. The argument is one from ideas. 
Ontology = science of realities. To the old Greeks the only 
realities were ideas, phenomena were transient things, appear- 
ances. In our days the case is reversed. 



44 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

question then is, Which is the most rational course, 
to believe that the First Cause is infinite or finite, 
of absolute or dependent existence? The answer 
cannot be doubtful. To assert that he depends for 
his existence on another would only send us a step 
farther back. If we must believe in a Maker of the 
universe, if we must believe that he is either infinite 
or finite, it is obvious which alternative has most 
reason on its side. The other alternative would 
give us a doctrine made up of the most incongruous 
elements. The instinct which leads us to ascribe 
every possible perfection to the Maker of all things 
can scarcely be a mistaken one. 

Another form which the argument takes is this. 
We have ideas of infinite goodness, truth, and holi- 
ness. Are these merely ideas? Or, is there a Being 
to whom they belong? If they are mere ideas, how 
can we account for their existence? Thus there is 
some measure of truth in Anselm's position, that 
the very idea of an absolutely perfect Being in- 
volves his existence; 1 at least to this extent, that 
the existence of the idea is best explained on the 

1 Anseira, Proslog. 2: " Convincitur etiam insipiens, esse in 
intellectu aliquid, quo raajus cogitari non potest. Et certo id 
quo majus cogitari nequit, non potest esse in intellectu solo. Si 
enini vel in solo intellectu est, potest cogitari esse et in re, quod 
majus est. Existit ergo procul dubio aliquid, quo magus cogi- 
tari non valet, et in intellectu et in re." At the same time it 
must be remembered that there is a fallacy in Anselm's argu- 
ment as he puts it. We cannot argue from thought to fact, 
namely, that because we have an idea of a perfect existence 
there must be a reality corresponding to it. We can only say, 
"If God exists, his must be an absolutely perfect existence." 
And this is the course followed in the text. See Norris, Rudi- 
ments of Theology, p. 252, and Descartes's comments, p. 253. 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 45 

supposition that it arises from the fact. Other- 
wise, the noblest ideas known to man are the veriest 
illusions. It will be said that it is easy to form 
ideas to which no realities correspond; but ideas 
which are among the oldest treasures of the race 
are not to be placed on a level with creations of in- 
dividual fancy. 1 

I 37. The Four Arguments Complementary. 
It is evident that the four branches of the argu- 
ment are mutually complementary. The first gives 
us the idea simply of vast power; the second adds 
personal intelligence, will, and wisdom; the third 
exhibits the Maker of the world as a moral govern- 
or; w r hile the fourth invests him with the incommu- 
nicable perfections of Deity. Each line of reason- 
ing is sound as far as it goes. It proves one thing, 
brings out one aspect of the idea of God. The w 7 hole 
gives us all the knowledge of God that is possible 
within the domain of natural religion. Not that 
unaided reason has ever discovered all this truth 
for itself. Whether reason in a normal state could 
do so, we can never certainly know. And again, 
the knowledge of God thus obtained is far below the 
knowledge we need and actually possess. Still, it 
forms the groundwork of the knowledge imparted 

1 A good account of the nature of the a priori argument, and 
of the different forms it has taken in the hands of Plato, Au- 
gustine, Anselm, Descartes, Malebranche, and others, will be 
found in Flint's Theism, Lect. ix. See also Pope, Comp. Theol. 
i. 236; Smith's Select Discourses, Disc, i., v. The a priori argu- 
ment, so called, of Samuel Clarke, Demonstration of the Being 
and Attributes of God, and Gillespie, Necessary Existence of 
God, proceeds on a different line. 



46 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

in supernatural revelation. What the latter does 
is to assume and amplify this great fundamental 
truth of all religion. 

I 38. Degree of Certainty Yielded. 
What is the degree of certainty yielded by this 
argument? It is not of the absolute kind belong- 
ing to intuition and demonstration. But it is as 
much stronger than the certainty attaching to the 
beliefs of daily life as the evidences of power, will, 
and moral character apparent in nature and human 
history are stronger than the evidences of the same 
qualities in man's works. What comparison is there 
between these two series of phenomena? One is as 
much higher than the other as the heavens are high- 
er than the earth. We believe in intelligent minds 
around us, because of the evidence they give of their 
existence. We cannot see, hear, or touch them; 
they are seen only by the inner eye of reason, L e., 
we infer their existence from their effects. A 
Christian's faith in the existence of a Supreme Mind 
rests on evidence precisely of the same kind, but 
far greater in amount. As the character of a book, 
or statue, or mechanical invention is the index of 
its author's ability, so the wonderful adaptations 
of the universe declare its Maker's glory. We can- 
not then imagine anything more rational than a 
Christian's faith in God. If our faith in history 
and science rests on rational grounds, with far 
stronger confidence we may say, "I believe in God 
the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth." 

I 39. Antitheistic Theories, 
The two antitheistic theories which most nearly 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 47 

concern us are Pantheism and Materialism. The 
first term is itself a definition, 1 not so the second. 
A Materialist is not one who believes in the exist- 
ence of matter, but one who believes there is noth- 
ing but matter. The two theories are radically op- 
posed to Theism and to each other. Theism affirms 
the distinct existence both of the Creator and the 
creature. Pantheism denies the latter, Materialism 
the former. One leaves no creature to worship, the 
other no God to be worshiped. According to the 
one theory, everything is spirit, there is no matter; 
according to the other, everything is matter, there 
is no spirit. Yet these radically opposite theories 
have this feature in common, that they are monistic, 
admitting but one ultimate substance. The desire 
for unity is ineradicable in human nature; but it 
must not ignore any of the primary facts and dis- 
tinctions of things. Pantheism and materialism do 
this in confounding the properties of spirit and mat- 
ter — thought and extension. Theism, on the con- 
trary, satisfies the thirst for unity, so far as facts 
allow. While keeping spirit and matter apart, it 
traces them at last to their source in the divine will. 
The independence of matter is derived, not absolute. 

la The All" is God, or God is "the All." There is some 
ground for the distinction which Luthardt draws between the 
tendencies of Eastern and Western Pantheism. "The former 
merges the world in God, and is consequently Acosmism. 
Hence it knows nothing of becoming, but only of being, of 
which particular phenomena are merely modifications (Eleatics, 
Spinoza). The latter merges God in the world, and is conse- 
quently Atheism. Hence it really knows only becoming, not 
being; it sees the Absolute only on the way to being, and there- 
fore views it as a process (Heraclitus, the Stoics, Fichte, Schell- 
ing, Hegel) " ; Comp. d. Dogmatik, p. 80. 



48 DOCTKINES PKESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

\ 40. Pantheism. 

Pantheism is peculiarly the error of the East, to 
whose speculative spirit it is congenial. It is there 
that it is worked out most systematically, and ex- 
erts the greatest practical influence. In the West 
it is the creed of the philosophic few. Pantheistic 
elements are found in the speculations of New T -Pla- 
tonism in Alexandria, of the early Gnostics, and of 
some of the mediaeval Mystics. But the first thor- 
oughgoing pantheist of the West is Spinoza, a Dutch 
Jew T (1632-77). 1 Considering the charge of a priori 
reasoning so often brought against theologians, it 
is worth notice that Spinoza's system is perhaps the 
most perfect system of a priori speculation extant. 
He starts with certain premises, from w T hich pan- 
theistic doctrine is then deduced; but he has first 
put the doctrine into the premises. The rigid math- 
ematical form of his speculations has a specious 
look, and is an attraction to many; but it is the veri- 
est delusion. According to Hegelianism, Christian- 
ity is pantheistic in essence. 

The most common form of pantheism is that which 
represents spirit and matter as temporary forms as- 
sumed by the absolute. They are real as forms, 
but not in se; they are phenomena, properties or 
accidents, the substance being the divine or the 
absolute. Two other possible, though uncommon, 
forms of pantheism are the idealistic and material- 
istic; for the first, thought is the sole phenomenal 
form of the absolute; for the second, matter. But 
the common feature in all pantheism is, that it makes 

1 Martineau, Study of Spinoza ; F, Pollock, Spinoza, his Life 
and Philosophy, 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 49 

the essence of Deity consist in absoluteness, and so 
denies his personality. God is not the infinite, but 
the absolute, i. e. y the sum of all existence, or the Un- 
related. Any other view is said to be unworthy of 
God. Everything — strong and weak, good and bad, 
true and false — is included in the divine existence; 
God is all alike. But w^ky should it be unworthy of 
God to exist in a state of relation to other existences, 
which in the last resort spring from his will? The 
Absolute must be able to originate such dependent 
existences, wills endowed with the power of moral 
freedom, else he would not be the Absolute. The 
theory that he has done so best explains the facts 
of life. Eventually pantheism is driven to deny the 
distinction between strong and w T eak, good and bad; 
weakness is only a lower degree of strength, evil of 
good. Besides, the term Absolute, like infinite, 
needs to be itself defined before it can become a def- 
inition. Absolute in what? And directly it is de- 
fined in any respect, the opposite is negatived. Such 
negation is not necessarily a defect; it may be an 
excellence, and its absence a defect. But according 
to Spinoza and all pantheists, no negation (and 
therefore no definition) must be affirmed of God. 

Personality is denied in God, on the ground that 
it implies limitation. It is argued that the idea of 
personality arises in us from the distinction between 
ourselves and others. But who, it is asked, or what is 
the other, from which God is eternally distinguished? 
To this argument there are two replies. The idea 
of personality arises, not only from our observing 
a distinction between ourselves and others, but also 
from the distinction that we make between our- 
4 



50 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

selves and our thoughts, the one element perma- 
nent, the other changing. Again, even if it were 
true that our idea of personality arises in the way 
stated, it would not follow that this is the only con- 
ceivable way in which it can arise. Human person- 
ality may be a copy of the divine, without being an 
adequate copy. Is personality an excellence or not? 
Is man better than an animal, because he is a self- 
conscious, self -determining agent? If so, how can 
such excellence be refused to God? Indeed, if God 
be the Absolute, on the principle of pantheism, he 
must be both personal and impersonal. 1 

I 41, Materialism* 

Materialism is peculiarly the error of the West. 
Some of the earliest Greek philosophers leaned in 
this direction. Epicurus formulated the atomic the- 
ory, according to which the universe is the result 
of chance combinations of innumerable atoms. 
Still, all the intelligence and purpose evident in the 
universe must have been present germinally in the 
original atoms, the existence and marvelous proper- 
ties of which are assumed, not accounted for. Lu- 
cretius put the atomic theory into verse. In modern 
days Hobbes (1588-1679) led the way in material- 
istic tendency; Hartley and Priestley took the same 
course; Locke's philosophy has been interpreted in 
a materialistic sense. The enormous development 
of materialism in France, Germany, Italy, and En- 
gland recently is well known. Mill, Bain, Spencer, 

1 Flint, Antitheistic Theories, p. 334; Christlieb, Modern 
Doubt, Lect. iii.; Blunt, Diet, of Sects, "Pantheists;" Buchan- 
an, as before, vol. ii.; Hodge, Syst. Theol. i. 246, 299. 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 51 

Comte are of this school. While there is no neces- 
sary connection between materialism and physical 
science, the prominence given to physical researches, 
unbalanced by philosophical study, helps the spread 
of materialism. 

A philosophical objection against pantheism and 
materialism in common is that they deny the exist- 
ence of an essential distinction between mind and 
matter. There is but one substance, either spirit 
or matter. According to one view, matter is merely 
a gross form of spirit; according to the other, spirit 
is a finer form of matter. The difference between 
such properties as thought, feeling, volition on one 
side, and size, hardness, weight on the other, is de- 
nied to be one of kind. It is enough to reply that 
hitherto all thought and language have assumed a 
radical difference between the two. On this point 
pantheism and materialism have against them a 
consensus of ancient and universal belief. 

A common inoral objection is that the two theo- 
ries are equally fatalistic. According to one, hu- 
man life and thought and action are points in. the 
evolution of the one absolute existence; according 
to the other, they are physical results of physical 
laws. In either case, freedom and responsibility 
are out of the question. Now one of the most cer- 
tain facts of consciousness is that of moral freedom. 
The consciousness of existence is not more certain. 
All social and legislative action proceeds upon it. 
Anv theorv that runs counter to such a fact is self- 
condemned. 

How can materialism explain the existence of 
abstract, immaterial ideas? Artistic, moral, and re- 



52 DOCTBINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

ligious ideas are the antithesis of material. How 
also can it explain memory? Where and what is 
the center of unity, in which past and present meet? 1 

$42. Positivism. 
Positivism, as taught by Auguste Comte (1798- 
1859), is materialism under another name. Adopt- 
ing the empirical definition of causality, it impera- 
tively forbids all inquiry into causes. Knowledge 
is rigorously limited to phenomena. Matter, mind, 
God are dismissed as unknowable. It is not merely 
religion that is made impossible by this doctrine, 
but mental philosophy or metaphysics. If there is 
no mind, of course there is no science of mind. In 
Comte's Index Expurgatorius, philosophy stands be- 
side theology. Plato, Aristotle, Leibnitz, Descartes, 
Berkeley, Kant, Hamilton were mere beaters of the 
air. According to Comte, theology is the earliest 
infantine stage of human culture, metaphysics and 
science being the next two stages. The truth is 
that the three classes of ideas are co-ordinate, not 
successive. They are all found in every age of the 
world in different degrees of cultivation. We may 
observe that Comte's boasted altruistic principle 
of morals is borrowed from Christianity, borrowed 
without acknowledgment. The strange thing is 
that after sweeping away every shred of religious 
doctrine and faith, Comte sets up a new religion, 
without God, soul, or immortality. Its god is the 
aggregate of humanity, its creed the dogmas of 
science, its worship the worship of humanity, its 

1 Flint, as before, p. 39; Christlieb, Lect. iii.; Blunt, Diet, of 
Sects, " Materialists." 



THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 53 

immortality posthumous influence, its ministers and 
priests Positivist teachers. No such parody of re- 
ligion was ever seen on earth before. 1 

\ 43. Agnosticism. 
Agnosticism professes to be ignorant, and there- 
fore neutral, on the questions of religious faith. It 
equally repudiates theism and atheism. But the ig- 
norance, it seems, is not absolute. Herbert Spencer 
holds it indubitable that there is a power behind phe- 
nomena, their cause and source, only we can know 
nothing further about it. Two things then are known, 
first, that there is such a power; secondly, that its 
nature is unknowable. But the mere certainty of 
the existence of such a power is no inconsiderable 
thing. Strange that knowledge should go so far 
and then stop. Might not the clew, if followed up, 
lead to other discoveries? Does the Power revealed 
in the facts of the universe only exist to tantalize 
and baffle us? The agnostic position, to say the 
least, is extremely improbable. As matter of fact, 
the means of knowledge and grounds of faith in' 
religion are precisely similar to those which agnos- 
tics accept without question in other fields of in- 
quiry. Why they should be sufficient in one case 
and insufficient in the other, is inexplicable. 

\ 44. Literature. 
Flint's Theism and Antitheistic Theories; Pa- 
ley's Natural Theology; Howe's Living Temple; M. 
Randies, First Principles of Faith; Blunt, Diet, of 

1 Flint, as before, p. 176; McCosh, Christianity and Positiv- 
ism ; Blunt, Diet, of Sects, " Positivists ; " "W. Arthur, Positivism 
and F. Harrison. 



54 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IX REDEMPTION. 

Theology, "Theism:" Buchanan. Faith in God ana 
Modern Atheism Compared. 2 vols.; Jenkins. Fern- 
lev Lmiji. on Modern Atheism, its Position and Prom- 
ise; Dr. Harris's two vols.. Philos. Basis of Theism 
and Self-revelation of God: Watkinson. Fern. Loot.. 
Influence of Skepticism on Character: Bedford. 
Christian's Plea Against Modern Unbelief, p. 54; 
Dorner. Syst. Christian Doctrine, i. 212: Hodge. 
Syst Theol. i. 204: McCosh. Method of the Divine 
Government. Physical and Moral. 

[Lotze. Philosophy of Beligion; Valentine. Nat- 
ural Theology: Bowne. Philosophy of Theism: Cock- 
er. Theistic Conception of the World: Winchell. Bec- 
onciliation of Science and Religion: Janet. Final 
Causes: Encyclopaedia Britannica. art. Theism, by 
Flint.— J. J. T.] 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 

$45. Introductory— §46. Special and Supernatural— §47. Three- 
fold Evidence— § 48. Presumptive Evidence: Christian and 
Heathen Writings Compared— §49. Evidences Proper: Mir- 
acles and Prophecy— §50. Proper Conception of Miracles— 
$51. Views of Modern Apologists Considered— § 52. Lecky and 
His School— §53. Hume's Argument Answered— §54. The Mir- 
acle of the Resurrection— § 55. Evidence from Prophecy— § 56. 
Changed Treatment of Prophecy— §57. Nature of the Argu- 
ment— §58. Alternatives— §59. Auxiliary Evidences: The Unity 
of Scripture— §60. The Character of Christ— §61. The Holiness 
of God— §62. Contrast Between Christ's Teaching and Human 
Philosophy— §63. The Influence of Christianity— §64. Final 
Evidence from Personal Experience— §65. Conclusion— §66. Rev- 
elation and Inspiration Distinguished— §67. The Old Testa- 
ment— §68. The New Testament— §69. Xo Uniform Theory— §70. 
The Verbal Theory— §71. The Dynamical Theory— §72. Litera- 
ture— §73. Canon: Passive and Active Sense— §74. The Passive 
Sense— §75. The Old Testament— §76. The Xew Testament— §77. 
The Active Sense— §78. Protestant Doctrines— §79. Roman Posi- 
tion— §80. The Official Definition— §81. Alleged Advantages 
Considered— § 82. Newman's Theory of Development— §83. Lit- 
erature. 

$45. Introductory. 

Revelation 1 means unveiling, here of God's mind 
and will to man. That Scripture is such a revela- 
tion has ever been the faith of the Church universal. 
The fundamental nature of this belief is evident 
from the consideration that Scripture is both the 
source and the standard of Christian doctrine, which 
it can only be on the supposition that it is God's 
voice to man. This subject includes the proof of 

1 A11 words of this termination may denote either the act or 
its result. 'When Scripture is termed a revelation, the latter is 
the meaning. 

(55) 



56 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IX REDEMPTION. 

three things, that Scripture is a Divine Revelation, 
is Inspired, and is the Canon of doctrine. 

I. REVELATION. 
g 46. Special and Supernatural. 
By this is meant a special, supernatural revela- 
tion in distinction from the general, natural one giv- 
en in creation, conscience, and history. The latter 
is the more ancient and universal. So far from be- 
ing abrogated, it is assumed, reaffirmed, and illus- 
trated in Scripture, Psalm xix.; Romans i. 20, ii. 
15; Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 22-31. But this general reve- 
lation is the more liable to be mistaken, as it needs 
to be not merely interpreted, but spelled out from 
the facts of nature. All depends on the competency 
and honesty of the reader and interpreter. That 
man is not to be trusted in this capacity is conclu- 
sively shown by the condition of the heathen world, 
where man was left without the help of special rev- 
elation. Besides, the fact of sin and the needs aris- 
ing out of it are subsequent in time to God's primi- 
tive revelation, and therefore are not provided for 
in it. Even a republication of the truths of natural 
religion with special divine attestations would not 
meet the new wants of man. Thus it is the fact of 
sin which has made a further revelation necessary. 
Accordingly, we find that the way of deliverance 
from sin is not merely the principal, but the only 
subject of Scripture, which from first to last treats 
of Redemption. As to the distinction between nat- 
ural and revealed religion, while certain truths may 
be classed under one and certain under the other 
head, it does not follow that even those belonging 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 57 

to natural religion could be clearly and perfectly 
learned from natural revelation. As matter of fact, 
both kinds of truth come to us at the same time, and 
it is impossible for us so to discriminate between the 
two as to assign them to different sources. When 
nature itself is regarded as a revelation, the dis- 
tinction between natural and revealed falls out of 
sight; but the distinction, though conventional, is 
useful. 

\ 47. Threefold Evidence, 

The evidences that Scripture is a divine revela- 
tion may be classed as Evidences Presumptive, Prop- 
er, and Auxiliary. 

g 48. Presumptive Evidence : Christian and Heathen 
Writings Compared. 

This prepares the way for the rest, showing that 
there is a case for the Christian contention. Per- 
haps one of the most effective forms of stating this 
argument is to compare the Christian Scriptures 
with heathen ones. Referring for details to works 
on comparative religion/ we may instance Hindoo- 
ism, Buddhism, Parsism, to which Mohammedanism 
may be added. Here we have the advantage of pos- 
sessing sacred writings, regarded as divine revela- 
tions, from which the doctrines of these systems 
can be authoritatively learned. 2 Limiting our at- 
tention to the fundamental doctrine of the divine 
existence already considered, what do these systems 
teach? The doctrine of the Hindoo Vedas is nature- 

2 See the useful little manuals on non-Christian systems 
published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 
2 In the case of the Greek and Eoman religion, we have no such 
advantage. 



58 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

worship, which afterwards grew into pantheism 
among the educated classes, and polytheism among 
the multitude. Buddhism was originally a system 
of atheistic morality, which soon passed into the 
worship of Buddha himself. In Parsism we have a 
doctrine of essential, eternal dualism, embodied in 
Orruuzd and Ahriman, the principles of good and 
evil. In neither of these great systems have we the 
elementary doctrines of the divine Unity, Spiritu- 
ality, and Holiness. Mohammedanism borrowed its 
higher doctrine from Judaism, to which it is a retro- 
gression. Its originality consists in its refusal to 
accept the fuller revelation of the Godhead given in 
Christianity. Contrast with heathen teaching the 
clear, pure monotheism of the Pentateuch. To what 
is the superiority of the Mosaic teaching due? To 
divine revelation, we say. To the monotheistic gen- 
ius of the Jewish or Semitic race, say some. The 
monotheistic genius of the Semitic race is a modern 
fiction. Babylonians, Arabians, Phoenicians, who were 
as much Semitic as the Jews, were not monotheists 
but gross idolaters. The opinion that the Jews 
were naturally inclined to monotheistic doctrine is 
belied by the whole tenor of their history, for they 
were constantly falling into idolatry. Their faith 
was evidently in advance of their natural attain- 
ments and inclinations. To ascribe it to peculiarity 
of national genius is merely a confession of igno- 
rance. Here we see Moses, long ages before the 
days of Buddha and Zoroaster, contemporaneously. 
as some think, with the seers and singers of the Ve- 
das. teaching a doctrine of monotheism, which has 
never been improved upon since. All the probabil- 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCEIPTUEE. 59 

ities are against his having obtained this knowledge 
by reasoning or intuition, and in favor of its having 
come to him by direct instruction. Ko doubt, far 
closer approximations to the truth on this subject 
are to be found in the &ages of the western world 
than in the oriental systems just referred to. Still 
they only amount to approximations on the part of 
a few select minds. There is nothing like the clean- 
cut certainty and definiteness to be found in Scrip- 
ture from the first. 1 

I 49. Evidences Proper : Miracles and Prophecy, 
The evidences proper are the Miracles and Proph- 
ecy of Scripture. 

\ 50. Proper Conception of Miracles. 
Miracles are described in the New Testament as 
powers, wonders, and signs (Acts ii. 22 ; Hebrews ii. 
4), terms which point to three aspects, not three 
kinds, of miracles. They have often been defined 
as "violations and suspensions'' of the laws of na- 
ture. But these phrases are objectionable, because , 
they assume that we know how miracles are 
wrought. On this point, however, we neither know 
nor need to know anything. Miracles only concern 
us as facts, in w T hich aspect they come under the 
same laws of knowledge and proof as other facts. 
The simplest definition is the best. Dr. Pope's def- 
inition (I. p. 62), "an intervention of the supreme 
power in the established course of nature," is suf- 
ficient. It refutes the common objection that mira- 
cles are inconsistent with laws of nature. On the 

1 Pressense, Ancient World and Christianity ; Hard wick, Christ 
and other Masters ; Kellogg, Light of Asia and Light of the World. 



60 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

contrary, they presuppose such laws. Where there 
is no law, no fixed order, there are no exceptions. 
On the other hand, the assertion that the fixed order 
of nature includes all possibilities, argues the great- 
est presumption. Xo believer in creation, which is 
the supreme miracle, can deny the possibility of 
miracles. The position that miracles are possible 
only presupposes that the Creator is free— that he 
does in a higher sphere what man does within the 
limits of law. It is quite conceivable that just as 
we use natural laws to bring about effects which 
would never follow from the laws themselves, so di- 
vine power uses the same or similar laws to effect 
results impossible to us. Or, there is nothing im- 
possible in the conception that miractes are unique 
creative acts. It must be remembered that they 
are by no means as plentiful, even in Scripture, as is 
sometimes supposed. The principal displays of mi- 
raculous power coincide with the beginnings of the 
two great dispensations of revelation — the Mosaic 
and the Christian. 

I 51. Views of Modern Apologists Considered. 

Some modern apologists think it a mistake to put 
miracles in the forefront of the Christian evidences, 
and that the stress should rather be placed on the 
self-evidencing truth of Christianity and its moral 
influence in the world. They almost intimate that 
in scientific days the miracles are a difficulty im 
stead of a help. But however forcible the argument 
from the work of Christianity in the world, no such 
argument was possible in the beginning. In those 
days, at least, a teacher professing to come from God 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 61 

must be able to appeal to some sign of his divine 
mission. Ages must pass before Christianity can 
produce such effects as would incontestabiy prove 
it to be divine. There is some force therefore in 
Dorner's suggestion that miracles were intended 
principally for contemporaries, intended to serve 
till the other evidence had time to grow. As for 
the self -evidencing truth of Christian doctrine, that 
is only for one who stands inside the circle of Chris- 
tian experience. It is quite possible that too exter- 
nal a view has been taken of miracles by writers on 
evidences. They may have spoken as if the eviden- 
tial were the only purpose. But, on the other hand, 
purposes of mercy and instruction do not exclude 
the evidential. In the face of passages like Mat- 
thew xi. 5; John v. 36, x. 25, 38, it is quite impossible 
to maintain that Christ did not appeal to his mira- 
cles in their evidential character. To expect him to 
do it in a more formal w T ay would be to expect him to 
speak in a more didactic manner than he did on any 
subject. Loud as the objections may be against 
revelation with miracles, the objections against rev- 
elation without miracles would have been still loud- 
er and more reasonable. Besides, the miraculous 
narratives are an integral part of Scripture. To 
remove them would be to break up Scripture. 
Christianity is thus committed to them. Which, 
then, is the most natural order? To receive Christ 
as the Lord of nature and then as a spiritual teacher, 
or the converse? The first is the ancient, the second 
the novel order. 

\ 52, Lecky and His School. 
Writers like Lecky represent miraculous narra- 



62 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

tives as the fictions of a credulous age. They ac- 
cordingly try to prove the first Christian age and the 
ancient world generally to be of this character, by 
collecting accounts of wonders then current. There 
is a fallacy, however, in this style of writing. Sto- 
ries of prodigies crowded into a few pages look very 
formidable; but they are gathered from a wide space 
of country and time. Could not a similar collection 
of wonders be made in our days? We do not, of 
course, deny that there are differences between one 
age and another. The characteristic of the present 
age is certainly not credulity; perhaps the spirit 
of skepticism is just as irrational as the credulity 
charged upon other days. But were the first Chris- 
tian ages barren of intellect and genius? Were 
they not the Augustan days of the Roman empire 
and literature? Was the critical spirit absent? 
Were men's senses less acute or their mental powers 
more sluggish? Did human nature then or ever 
display any eagerness to be duped? 

I 53. Hume's Argument Answered. 
The objection to the argument from miracles has 
never been stated more succinctly than by David 
Hume. It is, that since it is contrary to experience 
for miracles to be true, but not contrary to experi- 
ence for testimony to be false, no kind or amount 
of testimony can render miracles credible. The fal- 
lacy of the argument, put in this way, lies in the gen- 
erality of its premises. When it is said that mira- 
cles are contrary to experience, we ask, Whose or 
what experience? The experience of the professed 
witnesses of miracles? This is the point to be de- 
cided. When it is said that it is not contrary to 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 63 

experience for testimony to be false, we ask, What 
testimony? There are some kinds of testimony 
which it is contrary to all experience to regard as 
false. Given facts coming within the cognizance 
of the senses, given witnesses in a position to know 
the truth of the facts, competent to judge of them, 
unlikely to be deceived and under no temptation to 
deceive, and it is contrary to all experience for their 
testimony to be false. Such evidence would be ac- 
cepted in any judicial court on any question. And 
the evidence for the Christian miracles more than 
meets these tests. The principle of Hume's objec- 
tion, which expresses much of the current skepti- 
cism of our times, may be otherwise stated thus: 
The antecedent presumption against miracles, as 
departures from the fixed course of nature, is so 
strong that no amount of proof can overcome it. 
The antecedent presumption against miracles may 
be admitted. The force of the argument rests on 
their unique character. They belong to and evince 
a supernatural order. To attempt to reduce them 
to the natural order is to give up their distinctive 
character. Still one antecedent presumption is met 
by another, namely, by that against the falsehood 
of testimony of the kind alleged for the Christian 
miracles. And the very basis of the skeptical pre- 
sumption, the fixity of nature, itself rests on testi- 
mony and experience. The testimony which begets 
such an immovable conviction in one case is no 
stronger than that which exists in the other. In its 
first form, Hume's argument was directed against 
the very possibility of miracles, but it was after- 
wards modified. And this is the ground taken by 



64 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

skepticism still. In our days scientists and ration- 
alists are slow to say what is and is not possible, 
and prefer to contest the sufficiency of the evidence. 
On the latter ground Christianity has nothing to 
fear. No history is confirmed by evidence so abun- 
dant and so unexceptionable as the Christian his- 
tory. The alternative to believing it is disbelief 
of all history. Skeptics sometimes say that, con- 
sidering the importance of Christianity and the mag- 
nitude of its claims, the evidence for it ought to be 
such that its falsehood would be a greater miracle 
than its truth. The condition is a severe one, but 
a believer may accept it. Our position is precisely 
that disbelief does violence to all the laws which 
govern men's belief in other matters. 1 

I 54, The Miracle of the Besurrection. 
The fundamental miracle of Christianity is the Res- 
urrection of Christ. This carries all the rest. The 
other miracles and the entire Christian system stand 
or fall with it. We call it fundamental, because 
Christianity is so thoroughly committed to its his- 
torical reality. In the Acts and the Epistles it is 
put in the foreground of apostolic preaching. Spir- 
itual teaching is based upon it, the most far-reaching 
inferences are drawn from it. There is thus no pos- 

1 See Dorner on Miracles, Syst. Christian Doctrine, ii. 146-183 ; 
Mozley's Bampton Lecture on Miracles; Bruce, Miraculous 
Element in the Gospels ; S. Cox, Miracles : an Argument and a 
Challenge; Bow, Bampton Lecture on Christian Evidences, 
Lect. L; ii. ; Godet, Defense of Christian Faith, Lect. iii. ; Stein- 
meyer, Miracles of our Lord (Clark) ; Ibid., Passion and Bes- 
urrection-History ; Pearson on Creed; Barrow, ditto, Serm. 
xxix., xxx. ; South (ed. 1859), Serm. xxxiv. on "Resurrection of 
Christ, and Serm. iii. 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 65 

sibility of explaining it away as a mistake or inter- 
polation. Now the one universally admitted fact 
is the faith of the apostles and of the early Church 
in the Resurrection. Formerly this was not admit- 
ted. The apostles were regarded as willful impos- 
tors. Paley's treatise, however, disposed of the im- 
posture theory forever. Eationalists like Eenan 
and Kuenen are at one with believers in admitting 
the good faith of the apostles. That the early Chris- 
tians at least believed that Christ actually rose from 
the dead is proved by evidence so overwhelming — 
by the New Testament records, Paul's conversion, 
the continuous observance of the Lord's Day and 
Easter, the very existence of the Church — that so 
much must perforce be admitted. How, then, is 
this faith of the early Church to be explained? Here 
is the fact. What is its cause? The mythical the- 
ory is out of court. Myths require time for their 
growth. As long as the original facts remain fresh 
in the knowledge of men, it is impossible to surround 
them with a halo of legend. And nothing is more, 
certain than that the apostles preached the Resur- 
rection at the time and on the spot. The only ref- 
uge left is the visionary theory advocated by Renan. 
That is, the apostles, seeing a vision, an apparition 
of Christ, w T hich was the creation of their own brood- 
ing h\>pe and fancy, mistook it for a living man. 
But this is a psychological impossibility. Such a 
confounding of vision and reality is only possible 
in two cases. First, in the case of weak, senti- 
mental, half-crazy persons, which the apostles were 
not. Such cases are altogether abnormal. Or, sec- 
ondly, where an idea has become a fixed matter of 
5 



66 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

belief and expectation. This the Resurrection was 
not. All the evidence goes to show that the disci- 
ples were in a state of dismay and despair, the ver3' 
opposite of the state of ecstatic rapture, which could 
alone have given birth to the dream of the Resur- 
rection. Moreover, the idea was not a familiar one 
to the Jews. The Old Testament shows that to 
them death was associated with thoughts of gloom 
and irrevocable fixity. Besides, is it usual for such 
hallucinations as the theory alleges to happen to 
many persons'at the same time and to happen again 
and again? According to this theory, the whole 
Christian Church, the greatest birth of time, with 
all its beneficent results, originated in an illusion, 
a gross blunder. What earthly empire or institu- 
tion ever had such an origin? Give us a second in- 
stance of the kind. F. C. Baur, indeed, argues that, 
in order to explain Christianity and the Christian 
Church, we do not need the fact of the Resurrection, 
but only the faith of the apostles in it. But the 
question, How did this faith arise? returns with 
irresistible force. 1 

§55, The Evidence from Prophecy. 
Prophecy, as an evidence of Revelation, is re- 
garded simply in the narrow sense of prediction. 
In the broader sense a prophet is a specially com- 
missioned messenger from God (Exodus iv. 16, vii. 1). 
There were many prophets of whom no predictions 
are recorded. Prediction is an evidence of divine 

1 Fairbairn J Studies in the Life of Christ, ch. xviii. ; Row, 
Bampton Lect. Christian Evidences, Lect. vii. ; Godet, Defense of 
Christian Faith, Lect. i. ? ii. ; Paley, Evidences of Christianity. 



THE DIVINE BEVELATION IN SCBIPTURE. 67 

knowledge, as the miracles just considered are an 
evidence of divine power. The evidence of miracles 
is complete at the time, that of prophecy is reserved 
for the future. One is a fixed amount, the other is 
growing. One exhibits the divine rule chiefly in 
nature, the other in history and human life. The 
question may be asked, If the evidential force of 
prediction belongs to the future, what was its use 
at the time of utterance? It will generally be found 
that prediction appeared in times of national de- 
generacy and distress, and was intended for pur- 
poses of encouragement and warning. 

I 56. Changed Treatment of Prophecy*. 
A change has taken place in the mode of treating 
Scripture prophecy. Formerly the practice was to 
deal with isolated predictions (Keith), now it is to 
lay stress on the system of prophecy as a whole 
(Davison, P. Fairbairn). The Messianic prophecies 
may be taken as an example. Whatever may be 
thought of the importance to be ascribed to partic- 
ular predictions, it is impossible to deny that there 
is a gradually unfolding series of prophecies on this 
subject, beginning with the protevangelium, and 
culminating in the oracles of the greater and lesser 
prophets, which can only be explained as the result 
of divine inspiration. 1 

\ 57. Nature of the Argument. 
The fulfillment of prediction plainly shows that 
the history of which it forms part was under super- 
natural direction. Natural development is present 
in other histories. Looking back, we see that Eng- 

1 Orelli, Old Test. Prophecy (T. and T. Clark). 



68 DOCTEINES PEESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

lish institutions are the outgrowth of former con- 
ditions, and can trace the successive stages of their 
growth. The peculiarity of Jewish history is that 
its development was foretold. This is not natural, 
but supernatural, development. 

$ 58. Alternatives. 
The alternatives to the truth of prophecy are, 
either a merely natural explanation of the passages 
in question, arrived at by bald, strained exegesis 
applied on the larger scale, or the theory of interpo- 
lation. The latter theory is excluded, not merely by 
the fact of the extraordinary care with w T hich the 
Jews guarded their sacred books, but also by the 
insuperable difficulty of framing successful forger- 
ies of ancient documents. The prophecies are as 
much part of the texture of the Old Testament as 
the miracles are of the New. Subsequent forgery 
is as little to be thought of in one case as in the 
other. 1 

\ 59, Auxiliary Evidences : The Unity of Scripture. 

Scripture, while made up of the works of some 
thirty different writers, separated by intervals of 
centuries, is yet as perfectly one both in form and 
contents as if it were the product of a single mind. 
The unity, too, is not that of a machine, obtained 
by adding part to part, but that of a living organism, 
which preserves its identity amid continual change. 
Unity is combined with progress. This is strikingly 
seen in respect of the teaching of Scripture on all 

1 Davison, Discourses on Prophecy ; P. Fairbairn on Prophe- 
cy: its Distinctive Nature; Dean Jackson, Bk. vii. chs. v.-xix.; 
Payne Smith, Prophecy a Preparation for Christ, 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 69 

the great doctrines of religion. Thus the earliest 
and the latest revelations of the divine nature and 
character differ only in clearness and fullness. All 
the discrepancies that have ever been alleged, taken 
at the worst, relate merely to what is external and 
superficial. Each of the two Testaments forms a 
whole by itself; the two together form a larger 
whole. It is interesting to note how the later vol- 
ume treats the earlier one as one book. In Hebrews 
i. 5-13, five different passages are combined; in 
Romans ii. 8-10, three; iii. 10-18, six, etc. How is 
this profound unity to be explained? Only on the 
supposition that Scripture issues from one mind, as 
the doctrine of inspiration affirms. 1 

I 60. The Character of Christ. 

The uniqueness and perfection of Christ's moral 
character are universally admitted. Its uniqueness 
is seen in the harmonious blending of apparently 
inconsistent virtues, which exist in other cases for 
the most part separately and in excess. The char- 
acter also is not drawn out by the evangelists in set 
form, but represents the total impression made on 
the reader's mind. It is exhibited in Christ's words 
and acts. The life, moreover, is described by four 
different writers, who, dealing with the same sub- 
ject, set it in different points of view. Either, then, 
this character is real, i. e., the writers simply de- 
scribe what they saw and heard, or it is the inven- 
tion of the evangelists. The latter supposition is 
too wild for belief. In that case, obscure Jews have 

1 Eogers, Superhuman Origin of Bible; Paley, Hor. Paulinse; 
Blunt, Undesigned Coincidences. 



70 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

accomplished what the greatest dramatists and nov- 
elists have never done; they have given to a ficti- 
tious creation such an air of reality as to impose on 
the whole world. Besides, even writers of fiction 
are dependent on their age for materials. Where 
in the Jewish world of Christ's days were the mate- 
rials of such a picture to be found? If the character 
is real, i. e., if it is simply copied from life, we are 
committed to Christ's teaching, and the Christian 
position is established. 1 

\ 61. The Holiness of God. 
The Holiness uniformly ascribed to God in Scrip- 
ture points to a superhuman origin. According to 
Scripture, righteousness is God's essential, unchang- 
ing attribute. This feature alone puts an impassa- 
ble gulf between the Christian and the heathen con- 
ception of God. In Scripture righteousness is not 
an abstract ideal, but an active attribute. It is the 
rule of the divine dealings. As to the reflections 
made on some of these dealings in the Old Testa- 
ment, it must be remembered that these acts are 
judicial punishments of sin. After every possible 
deduction, it cannot be denied that the moral stand- 
ard of Scripture is very high. And remembering 
man's tendency to frame deities in his own image, 
it is difficult to believe that the Scripture concep- 
tion of the divine character is the result of human 
thought. 

1 Young, Christ of History ; Row, The Jesus of the Evangel- 
ists; Ibid., Barnpton Lecture, Lect. iv. It has often been re- 
marked that the sense of sin and moral defect, which is an inva- 
riable mark of the holiest natures, is absent in Christ. Christ's 
perfection is admitted. How is the difference to be explained? 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 71 

g 62. Contrast Between Christ's Teaching and Human 
Philosophy. 

Canon Row, in his Bampton Lecture (p. 130), has 
worked out a strong argument on this ground. The 
points of contrast are such as these: Philosophers 
begin with the speculative; they essay faultless def- 
initions of virtue which are never reached. So with 
Plato. Christ sketches a concrete morality, which 
has certainly never been excelled, if it has ever been 
equaled. Philosophers aim at constructing a per- 
fect State through which to regenerate society. See 
Plato^s Republic. Christ begins with the individ- 
ual. The schemes of reform proposed by philoso- 
phers were exclusive and aristocratic; they required 
culture, and gave up the lower and lapsed classes 
as hopeless. Christ's aims comprehend all; if any 
preference is shown, it is for the neglected and lost. 
Philosophers emphasized the stronger virtues, such 
as courage, justice, magnanimity. Christ puts the 
milder virtues first. He shifted, so to speak, the 
center of gravity in ethics, an act which has had 
incalculable consequences (see Row's striking re- 
marks, p. 158). Philosophers work through habit, 
which is conservative, improving the good and con- 
firming the bad, but initiating nothing; Christ 
through faith, which is creative. Such contrasts 
as these involve much more than a difference of de- 
gree. Christ's teaching is on a new, an opposite 
line. Its effect must be the creation of a new type 
of morality. To say that all this is explained by 
religious genius is not enough, because genius after 
all does not create entirely new types, but carries 
existing types to a higher point. 



72 DOCTBINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

g 63. The Influence of Christianity. 
In the same work, Mr. Row argues very power- 
fully that the influence of Christ and Christianity 
amounts to a moral miracle (pp. 91, 101). The argu- 
ment supposes that there is a fixed order in the 
moral as in the physical world, and that there are 
laws which limit the extent of human action. Ev- 
erything, therefore, going beyond these laws is a 
miracle. Human experience is now long enough to 
enable us to ascertain what man's unaided pow- 
ers can and cannot do. The question then is, Can 
Christ's influence be explained as the result of these 
natural powers? And the question must be an- 
swered by an appeal to facts, and a comparison of 
the position of Christianity to-day with that of other 
systems. As matter of fact, countless lives of the 
finest purity, to say nothing of the great characters 
and movements of Christendom, have owed their 
origin to Christ. Can it be said that the force which 
dwelt in him, and which has been the spring of so 
much other force, was merely human? 1 

I 64. Final Evidence from Personal Experience. 
This evidence arises from reflection on what Scrip- 
ture has been and is to the individual Christian. 
What did it find me? What has it made me? Is 
not its influence on me different in kind from that 
of every other book? If so, is it not the voice of 
God? If God has spoken to me at all, has he not 
spoken here? This argument is peculiar to the 

1 Storrs, Divine Origin of Christianity ; Brace's Gesta Christi. 
See criticism in Bruce, Miraculous Element in the Gospels, p. 
294; Eow, Manual of Christian Evidences; Schmidt, Social 
Results of Early Christianity. 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 73 

Christian. It cannot be adduced to others, but to 
him it is the most powerful of all. The conviction 
it begets is more than intellectual. It is sufficient 
of itself in the absence of others, as the experience 
of the majority of Christians proves. Protestant- 
ism has always laid stress on it under the name of 
testimonium Spiritus Sancti. 

I 65. Conclusion. 
The cumulative force of these lines of evidence 
must be taken into account. Each strengthens the 
other. Their aggregate forms the firm foundation 
of Christian faith in Scripture as a revelation from 
God. 

II. INSPIRATION. 

A. — DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION. 

I 66. Revelation and Inspiration Distinguished. 

The most feasible distinction between Eevelation 
and Inspiration is the one which applies the former 
to the divine communication to selected agents, and 
the latter to the special divine influence insuring 
the accurate record of the communication in writing. 
Even without the latter we have at least as good 
reason for regarding Scripture as a substantially 
accurate record of the original revelation as we have 
for receiving ordinary historical narratives; and this 
might seem to be sufficient. If, however, not mere- 
ly the source but the medium of revelation is divine, 
if, that is, we have reason to believe that special 
divine influence presided over the recording of rev- 
elation, we have the best guarantee that the revela- 
tion comes to us uncorrupted. There might be rev- 
elation without inspiration. It might be the divine 
will simply to make known certain truths and then 



74 DOCTEINES PKESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

leave their preservation to human fidelity. Wheth- 
er this is the case or not, we can only learn from the 
facts. This is the view taken of the office of inspi- 
ration by Dr. Pope, who says: " Inspiration, distin- 
guished from revelation, denotes the specific agency 
of the Holy Ghost in the creation and construction 
of Holy Scripture." "The Scriptures, fairly com- 
pared and interpreted, declare it to be that special 
influence of the Holy Ghost on the minds of holy 
men, selected for the purpose, which qualified them 
to communicate from age to age an infallible rec- 
ord of divine truth concerning the redeeming will 
of God." 1 Dr. Hodge says: "The effect of revela- 
tion was to render its recipient wiser. The effect 
of inspiration was to preserve him from error in 
teaching. . . . Eevelation is the act of commu- 
nicating divine knowledge by the Spirit to the mind. 
Inspiration is the act of the same Spirit, control- 
ling those who make the truth known to others." 2 
Dr. Lee says: "By inspiration I understand that 
actuating energy of the Holy Spirit, guided by 
which the human agents chosen by God have official- 
ly proclaimed his will by word of mouth, or have 
committed to writing the several portions of the 
Bible." 3 

The work of Revelation is generally connected in 
Scripture with Christ (John i. 18; Galatians i. 12; 
Matthew xi. 27; Hebrews iii. 1), that of Inspiration 
with the Holy Spirit (2 Peter i. 21; 1 Peter i. 11). 

Inspiration is proved from Scripture itself. This 

iCompend. i. 156, 168. 2 System. Theol. i. 155, 162. 3 The 
Inspiration of Holy Scripture, p. 27; Bannerman, Inspiration 
of the Scriptures, p. 151 (Clark). 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 75 

may seem like arguing in a circle, but it is not really 
so. We here simply assume, what has been already 
established, that Scripture is a divine revelation, 
that its statements are generally as trustworthy as 
those of other similar records. And we ask, What 
does it say about itself? What claims does it 
make? What do its claims presuppose? It will 
be seen that the idea of inspiration is not so much 
matter of express statement as a belief made nec- 
essary by the tone and style of Scripture teaching, 
or in other words it is an inference from the phenom- 
ena of Scripture. It may, indeed, be objected that 
such a mode of argument would commit us to belief 
in the claims of the Koran and other sacred books. 
But if the previous argument holds good, the differ- 
ence is evident. We have already ascertained the 
substantial historical truth of Scripture. 

§ 67. The Old Testament. 

The Inspiration of the Old Testament may be es- 
tablished by a short and easy method, namely, by 
an appeal to the fact that Christ and the apostles 
treat it as a final divine authority. They indorse 
the Jewish belief of their day on the subject. What 
that belief was we know on the testimony of Jewish 
authorities like Josephus and Philo. 1 It was the 
same that the belief of the Christian Church has 
always been, the same as ours. The books forming 
the Old Testament were separated from the rest 
of Jewish literature and invested with divine au- 
thority. 

The term Scripture carried with it the same con- 
notation for the Jews that it does for us. And we 

^ope, i. 177; Lee, p. 53. 



76 DOCTKINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

find it used in this sense (of course in reference to 
the Old Testament) about forty times in the New 
Testament (John v. 39, x. 35; Luke iv. 21; Matthew 
xxii. 29), the Scripture, the Scriptures, Holy Scrip- 
tures (Romans i. 2); "the sacred writings" (2 Tim- 
othy iii. 15). The same Old Testament words are 
quoted both as divine (Matthew xv. 3, 4, 6) and as 
human (Mark vii. 10). See Mark xii. 36; compare 
Acts xxviii. 25, and John xii. 11; Hebrews x. 15, 
iii. 7; Acts i. 16. "That which was spoken by the 

Lord through the prophet" (vTroKvptov Sia TOV7rpocf>T]TOv), 

Matthew i. 22. The Xew Testament argues from 
the very words of the Old (Galatians iii. 16; John 
x. 31-36; Matthew xxii. 32, 13-45). 

The bearing of the statement in 2 Timothy iii. 
16 on this subject is not materially changed by the 
acceptance of the new translation. If the phrase 
"inspired of God" is thus transferred from the pred- 
icate to the subject, inspiration is simply assumed 
instead of being asserted. The new translation may 
indeed seem to leave an opening for a distinction 
between inspired and noninspired portions of the sa- 
cred writings. But no such distinction was known 
to Jewish thought; and the apostle, as a Jew, would 
be the last to suppose it. 

A possible objection is that Christ and the apos- 
tles merely accommodated themselves to current 
Jewish opinion. But nothing is more certain than 
that they exercised discrimination, condemning 
some beliefs and indorsing others (see Mark vii. 8- 
13; Matthew xii. 2-8). If, as the objection supposes, 
Christ and the apostles indorsed erroneous beliefs, 
either ignorantly or willfully, their authority as 
teachers is gone. 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 77 

The only Old Testament books not referred to in 
the Xew are Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Esther, Ezra, 
and Xeheniiah. 

\ 68. The New Testament. 

The proof of the inspiration of the Xew Testament 
depends on the proof of two other facts, the promise 
of special help to the apostles in their official work, 
and the Xew Testament books being the work of 
apostles or of those immediately connected with 
them. Xeither of these two facts is difficult of 
proof. 

a. In Matthew x. 19, 20 and parallel passages the 
help of the Holy Spirit is promised to the apostles 
in their public apologies for the faith. If these pas- 
sages stood alone, no more help would be promised 
than is given to all believeis in like circumstances. 
But there is a series of passages in St. John's Gos- 
pel (xiv. 16, 17, 20, 26, xv. 26, 27, xvi. 7, 12-15) which 
affirm much more. The Holy Spirit will enable the 
apostles to recall the past, and will communicate 
all further knowledge that is necessary. They are 
directed to wait in Jerusalem for the power from on 
high, which power they receive in its fullness at 
Pentecost. The transformation in their character 
is marvelous. This endowment of power bore upon 
every part of their apostolic work; and in that work 
none could compare in importance with the record- 
ing for all after time of the origin and doctrines of 
the Christian faith. 

6. The Xew Testament books all bear the names 
of apostles and helpers of apostles. The proof that 
this repute is genuine may be postponed till the 
question of the Canon comes up. The historical ev- 



78 DOCTKINES PBESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

idence is the same in both cases. We assume then 
for the present that the Christian tradition on this 
subject is to be trusted. 

The authority claimed by the apostles is the high- 
est possible, Galatians i. 8, 12. St. Paul could not 
have used such language unless he had been con- 
scious of teaching in the divine name. If the 
" prophets" mentioned in Ephesians ii. 20 are the 
Old Testament prophets, as is most probable (comp. 
2 Peter iii. 2), the apostles are put on a level with 
them. It has often been observed that in 2 Peter 
iii. 15, 16, St. Paul's writings are implicitly called 
"Scriptures." 

An objection is sometimes drawn from the way in 
which the Old Testament is quoted in the New. 
These quotations, it is said, are so free that the 
writers cannot have ascribed divine authority to the 
ancient Scriptures. Dr. Lee, 1 however, has shown 
that the quotations are by no means so inexact and 
capricious as is represented. A fourfold law gov- 
erns them : (1) Where the Septuagint agrees with the 
Hebrew in meaning, it is quoted literally. (2) Where 
it gives a wrong meaning, the Hebrew original is 
translated. (3) In a few cases the quotation agrees 
with neither. (4) One New Testament writer fol- 
lows the Septuagint, another the Hebrew in the 
same passage. There are no doubt some difficult 
cases, which need to be considered by themselves. 

B. — DOGMA OF INSPIRATION. 

§ 69. No Uniform Theory. 
There is no uniform theory of inspiration univer- 
1 Page 349. 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 79 

sally received in the Church. Indeed, there is no 
subject on which there is less approach to unanimity 
as regards formal definition. At the same time 
there is no subject on which there is closer agree- 
ment as regards substance. The substance of in- 
spiration may be said to be that Scripture is di- 
vine in form as well as in contents. It is to the 
very absence of controversy on this point (and con- 
troversy has always been the occasion of definition) 
that the absence of definition is due. The way in 
which Scripture has always been appealed to as 
God's word in a special sense is proof enough of the 
Church's faith in inspiration. 

§ 70. The Verbal Theory. 

Before we are asked to decide on the Verbal the- 
ory of Inspiration, we need to have it defined. If 
it means that every word of Scripture was equally 
given by the Spirit to the human writer, it is doubt- 
ful whether anyone holds it. All, when pressed to 
define, admit distinctions and modifications. How 
is the rigid theory applicable to the historical por- 
tions of Scripture? How is it reconcilable with dif- 
ferences in narratives of the same events and rec- 
ords of the same discourses? Such differences are 
explicable from different writers speaking from dif- 
ferent points of view, but are scarcely compatible 
with the same mind taking different points of view 
with little or no apparent reason. How, too, is the 
theory reconcilable with the different styles of writ- 
ing? No doubt it is reconcilable, for we can sup- 
pose the Holy Spirit adapting himself to different 
mental constitutions. But the explanation makes 



80 DOCTKINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

Scripture appear unnatural, allowing too little play 
to the human agent. 

But if strict verbal inspiration is confined to some 
portions, all admit it. That we are unable to dis- 
tinguish the portions is no difficulty, for we do not 
need to do so. The portions which do not come un- 
der the head of rigid verbal inspiration are just as 
really inspired as the rest, but not in the same de- 
gree. 

The holders of the rigid theory, when they come 
to apply it to historical Scripture, so limit and qual- 
ify it that it ceases to be what it professes to be. 
It becomes identical in substance with the theory 
known as Dynamical. 

\ 71. The Dynamical Theory. 

The latter term is used to denote that the Holy 
Spirit works in and through the natural faculties 
and gifts of the writers. This theory explains all 
the phenomena without strain. The divine and the 
human interpenetrate each other. Each is distinct, 
and yet each exists in indissoluble union with the 
other. We have here then the same mystery as in 
the incarnation. Origen says : " Scripture as a whole 
is God's one perfect and complete instrument; giv- 
ing forth, to those who wish to learn, its one saving 
music from many notes combined." 

1 "At length all is finished. A profound piece of music, a vast 
oratorio, perfect and elaborate unity, has resulted from a long 
succession of strains, each for itself fragmentary. On such a 
final creation, resulting from such a distraction of parts, it is in- 
dispensable to suppose an overruling inspiration, in order at all 
to account for the final result of a most elaborate harmony": 
De Quincey in Lee, p. 113, 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 81 

The inspiration of Scripture is specifically differ- 
ent from that of ordinary Christians. Otherwise 
no authority can be ascribed to it simply as Scrip- 
ture; it only appeals like other forms of teaching to 
human reason, and we are only bound to receive its 
doctrine in so far as we can comprehend it. What 
will be the fate of mysterious doctrines is easily 
seen. 

The tendency in early days was to a rigid theory. 
The human writer was made all but passive, the fa- 
vorite illustration of his office being the lyre. In 
modern days the most extreme form has been found 
in confessions of the Eef ormed side, where not mere- 
ly a verbal but a literal inspiration has been taught. 1 
But it is foolish to write, as Romanist writers do, 
as if Protestantism were committed to such views. 
The subject is one on which still further inquiry is 
necessary and desirable. 

I 72. Literature. 
Lee, Inspiration of Holy Scripture; Gaussen, The- 
opneustia; Given, Revelation, Inspiration, and the 
Canon; Bannerman, Inspiration of Scripture; Char- 
teris, N. T. Scriptures, Lect. ii. 2 

III. CANON. 

\ 73. Canon : Passive and Active Sense. 

This truth follows from the two previous ones. 

If Scripture is divinely revealed and inspired, it 

must be the canon of religious faith and conduct. 

The term canon (kcxiw, rule) 3 has two shades of 

1 Pope Compend. i. 181. 2 Blunt, Diet. Theol., " Inspiration; " 
Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, ii. 183. 3 Other applica- 
tions are ecclesiastical ones — canonical, canons of councils, etc. 
6 



82 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IX REDEMPTION. 

meaning, passive and active. It is first measured, 
i. e. ? itself made a rule; then it measures other things. 
We cannot speak of Scripture being made a canon 
by human authority, but only of its eing recognized 
as such. 1 

I 74. The Passive Sense. 

This is the recognition of Scripture as a rule of 
faith and conduct. The formal statement of this 
idea was of slow growth, taking several centuries 
to arrive at completeness. As the phrase, "History 
of the growth of the Canon," may be easily misun- 
derstood, some explanation is necessary. It might 
mean, and is often represented as meaning, that 
books of the New Testament, once not regarded as 
divine, came gradually to be regarded in this light. 
But how was this possible? Which of the early 
Christian Churches or writers ever pretended to con- 
fer authority on any book? They never professed to 
do more than believe and teach as the Christians be- 
fore them did. If any book was without divine au- 
thority in the Church, it could never acquire it. The 
position here is precisely the same as in the other 
dogmas, e. g., the Trinity. All that is new is the for- 
mal, precise statement of the idea of supreme author- 
ity attaching to certain books and no others, and the 
expression of this idea in an apt phrase. The sub- 
stance of the truth is as old as Christianity, We are 
again met by the Romanist statement that we owe 
the Canon of Scripture to the Church, Undoubtedly 
we owe to the Church what has just been stated, 
and no more. We do not owe to it the idea of scrip- 



1 Blunt, Diet. Theology, "Canon;" Smith, Diet, of Bible, 
" Canon." 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 83 

tural authority, which is the kernel and essence of 
the truth. If we do, let anyone tell us when and 
where the Church made any book authoritative that 
was not so before. The local Synod of Carthage, 
397 A.D., only professed to state what books were 
received in the Church as Scripture; and in doing 
even so much it went grievously wrong, like the 
Council of Trent nearly twelve centuries afterwards. 

I 75. The Old Testament. 

The identity of our Old Testament with the Jew- 
ish canon is established by a long line of witnesses. 
The two Jewish schools of Babylon and Jerusalem 
were in accord on the subject. Josephus and Philo 
arrange the books differently from what we do, but 
the books are the same. The tradition is continued 
through the Talmudists (second to sixth century 
A.D.) and the Masoretes (sixth to ninth) to our own 
days. Among early Christian writers, Melito of 
Sardis (179 A.D.) has our Old Testament with the 
exception of Esther; Origen omits the Minor Proph- 
ets, but the imperfect state in which his writings 
have come down to us must be remembered; Jerome, 
a high authority on this question, has ours; Augus- 
tine is wavering about the Apocrypha. 

The Apocryphal books arose in Alexandria, and 
were generally associated as a supplement with the 
Septuagint. The Septuagint was naturally used ex- 
tensively in the West both for reading and as the 
basis of translation ; and in this way the Apocrypha 
passed into the West. Augustine, whose authority 
on such a subject is as slight as Jerome's is great, 
gave countenance to it, and to his influence the ac- 



84 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

tion of the Carthage synod is due. The Apocrypha 
never formed part of the Hebrew and Jewish canon. 
There are no Targums on it. Jerome, Melito, Ori- 
gen, Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ep- 
iphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, do not acknowledge 
it. It is not quoted in the New Testament, a de- 
cisive fact in face of the numerous quotations from 
the Old. Yet the Tridentine Council indorsed it. 
The English and Lutheran Churches read the Apoc- 
rypha for instruction and edification, a course to 
wilich there can be little objection. The books of 
Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, The Song of 
the Three Children, are well worth attention. 

\ 76, The New Testament. 1 

The principal difficulty is in the period ending 
with the third quarter of the second century, and 
the difficulty arises from the scantiness of the re- 
mains of early Christian literature. If we may sup- 
pose that the writers, whose works have perished, 
were as full of incidental references to the New 
Testament as those whose works remain in whole or 
in part, nothing could be more abundant than the 
evidence. 

First, the Apostolic Fathers. Clement of Rome 
(96 A.D.). 2 His Epistle to the Corinthians mentions 
Paul's to the same church: "Take up the epistle of 
the blessed Paul the apostle. . . . He charged 
you concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos." 
He has many allusions to the Epistle to the He- 
brews, as well as to Matthew, Luke, and Eomans. 
His quotations begin with "It is written/' "God 

1 See p. 77, \ 68, b. 2 See Phil. iv. 3. 



THE DIVINE REVELATION. IN SCRIPTURE. 85 

saith." The Epistle of Barnabas (72) is steeped in 
the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, though 
greatly inferior in spirit and tone. He introduces 
a quotation from Matthew with "as it is written/' 
Polycarp has more references to the New Testament 
than any other writer of his day, but they are all 
tacit. He says to the Philippians, "The blessed and 
glorious Paul wrote letters to you/' Peter's influ- 
ence on him is marked. Hernias bears the same re- 
lation to St. James that Barnabas does to the He- 
brews. He seems to speak for the Judaizing party. 
James and Revelation are often alluded to. There 
are clear allusions to Matthew, Luke, John, and 
Acts. Christ's words are paraphrased. Ignatius 
(107) refers almost exclusively to Paul, whose teach- 
ing on the relation of Christianity to Judaism he re- 
produces. He has also reminiscences of Matthew 
and John. 

The Apostolic Fathers contain references then to 
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 
Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James, L 
Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. Many of the facts 
of Christ's earthly life are mentioned, such as the 
miraculous Birth, Baptism, the Star, the Resurrec- 
tion, and Ascension. 

The writer, however, on whom controversy chief- 
ly turns is Justin Martyr (150), whose two Apolo- 
gies and Dialogue with the Jew Trypho are extant. 
Not the least valuable part of his testimony is his 
recital of all, or nearly all, the facts of Christ's 
earthly life in exact coincidence with the Gospels. 
So close is the correspondence that, were the Gos- 
pels lost, we could recover the substance of the his- 



86 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

tory from Justin. 1 The points of discrepancy are 
so slight as not to be worth mention. 2 Either, then, 
Justin got his knowledge from our Gospels, or from 
other documents essentially identical with them. 
For all that is vital to our position, it matters little 
which is the fact. But really the writers who speak 
so fluently of other documents lying behind our 
Gospels should give some proof of the existence of 
such documents. Our Gospels exist, no others do. 
Of course as matter of abstract possibility our Gos- 
pels may have been derived from earlier writings. 
But where is the evidence of such derivation? How 
is it that those earlier documents, which, as the ear- 
liest depositories of the faith, must have been un- 
speakably precious to the Church, have passed away 
and left no trace behind? Their existence is mere 
conjecture and possibility. 

Justin uses the term " Gospels," but his ordinary 
name for the writings he refers to is " Memoirs of the 
Apostles." If these are not our Gospels, what are 
they? He speaks of them as " composed by apostles 
and those who followed them." 

Justin probably refers to Matthew, Mark, Luke 
(John), Eevelation, Colossians, Komans, Corinthi- 
ans, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews. "The Catholic Epis- 
tles, Titus, Philemon, only left no trace." 

The testimony of Papias is only known to us 
through Eusebius. His five books, Exposition of 
Oracles of the Lord, would have been invaluable 3 
if they had survived. He speaks of the Gospel of 

1 Westcott, Hist, of Canon, p, 94. For Justin's life, see 
Smith, Diet. Christ. Biogr. * Ibid. p. 138. 8 So of the Five 
books of Memoirs "by Hegesippus. 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 87 

Matthew in Hebrew, and of Mark as a disciple of 
Peter, not of Christ. We gather also that he knew 
John's Gospel. Eusebius says that he quoted 1 
John, 1 Peter, and held the inspiration of Revela- 
tion. His silence about Paul is significant, because 
it arose from his Judaizing tendencies. 

Two other witnesses are the Muratorian Canon 
(end of second century) and the Syriac Version of 
the New Testament (Peshito, first half of second 
century). The first derives its name from the schol- 
ar who unearthed it in the Ambrosian library in 
Milan in a MS. of the seventh or eighth century. 
It is evidently a translation from the Greek, and is 
imperfect at the beginning and end. Internal evi- 
dence fixes its great antiquity. It professes to give 
an account of the Xew Testament books. What is 
its account? Luke is put in the third place, and is 
mentioned as Paul's companion. The fourth place 
is assigned to John. The Acts is a record by Luke 
"of those acts of all the apostles which fell under 
his notice." Thirteen Epistles of Paul are men-, 
tioned, nine to churches and four to individuals. 
There is also mention of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephe- 
sians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, 1 and 2 
Thessalonians, Romans, and less clearly of Revela- 
tion, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Those not mentioned 
are 1 Peter, 1 John, James, 2 Peter, and Hebrews. 
No apocryphal books are added. 

The Peshito is the most venerable of translations. 
It became the basis of translations into Arabic, Per- 
sian, and Armenian, and is still used by all Syrian 
sects. It omits only 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, 
and Revelation. 



88 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

The only book of which hitherto no mention is 
found is 2 Peter. All the rest — namely, four Gos- 
pels, thirteen Epistles of Paul, three of John, 1 Pe- 
ter, James, Jude. Revelation. Hebrews — are referred 
to more or less. Dr. Westcott says: "With the ex- 
ception of Hebrews, 2 and 3 John. 2 Peter, James, 
Jude, and Revelation, all other books of the Xew 
Testament are acknowledged as apostolic and au- 
thoritative at the close of the second century." 1 

After this we find references to the less known 
books as follows: to 2 Peter "perhaps," Revelation 
of John, Hebrews, James, Jude. in Origen; to He- 
brews. 2 Jude. 1 John, and Revelation, in Clement 
of Alexandria: to Hebrews. 2 and 3 John, Revela- 
tion, 3 in Dionysius; to Jude and Revelation, in Ter- 
tullian. Cyprian, etc.: to Revelation, in Hippolytus; 
to Hebrews and Revelation, in Methodius. Xo book 
is added. 

Eusebius (270-340 A.D.) closes the list. His tes- 
timony is valuable for two reasons. He had in his 
hands works which have since perished. He had 
also made a special study of early Christian his- 
tory. Treating of the present subject, he divides 
the Xew Testament books into three classes. Ac- 
knowledged. Disputed, and Spurious. The first 
class includes the four Gospels= Acts. Paul's Epis- 
tles, 1 John. 1 Peter, Revelation; the second, James, 
Jude, 2 Peter. 2 and 3 John; the third. Revelation, 
"if not by the apostle John." of which evidently he 
had no doubt. *• Disputed" may easily be misunder^ 
stood. It is plainly used to indicate books which 

1 Page 293. 2 u Written in Hebrew and translated by Luke." 
1 u Inspired, but not John's." 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 89 

were less generally known and used. It will be seen 
that the books coming under this head are not those 
which are much used in the establishing of doc- 
trine. 

Two circumstances that would seem to put for- 
gery and interpolation out of the question are, that 
the Christian Scriptures were read in public wor- 
ship, 1 and the existence of different parties and 
sects which appealed to the same books. Some 
of the first commentaries issued from writers who 
stood apart from the majority of the Church. Wit- 
ness the Diatessaron of Tatian, and the commenta- 
ries of Heracleon. 2 The fanciful argument of Ire- 
nseus, to show that only four Gospels w 7 ere possible, 
is well known. 3 

We may well ask, What other works of the an- 
cient world are attested by such various and con- 
verging lines of evidence? 

§ 77. The Active Sense. 
The Scripture is the rule of Christian doctrine 
and practice, the sole and final court of appeal in the 
Christian Church. 

I 78, Protestant Doctrine. 
The only heresy to be noticed on the subject is that 
of the Roman Church. Protestant creeds are unani- 
mous in rejecting every other source and standard of 
revealed truth. English Art. vi. [Methodist Art. v.] : 

1 Eeferred to by Justin, Tertullian, Origen. The first says : 
" The memoirs of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, 
are read as time allows ; and when the reader has ended, the 
president makes a discourse," etc. 2 Quoted in Clement and 
Origen. 3 Charteris, N. T. Scriptures, Lect. iii.-vi. 



90 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to 
salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor 
may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any 
man, that it should be believed as an article of the 
Faith, or be thought requisite and necessary to sal- 
vation." Westminster Confession i. 6: "The whole 
counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for 
his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is 
either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good 
and necessary consequence may be deduced from 
Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be 
added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or 
traditions of men." Formula of Concord: "We be- 
lieve the only rule and standard, by which all dog- 
mas and all teachers are to be measured and judged, 
is no other than the writings of the prophets and 
apostles, as well in the Old Testament as the New." 1 

\ 79. Roman Position. 
The Roman Church receives Scripture as we do, 
but coordinates Tradition with it. Cone. Trid., sess. 
iv.: "The holy Synod, . . . ever keeping in 
view the removal of error, and the conserving of the 
purity of the Gospel in the Church, . . . and 
seeing this truth and discipline to be contained in 
the written Scriptures, and the unwritten traditions, 
which, received by the apostles from Christ's own 
lips, or handed down by the apostles themselves at 

1 " Credimus . . . unicam regulam et norman, secundum 
quam omnia dogmata omnesque doctores sestimari et judicari 
oporteat, nullam omnino aliam esse, quam prophetica et apostol- 
ica scripta cum V. turn N. T." Winer, Conf. p. 42; Cramp, 
Text-book of Popery, Eule of Faith, p. 39; Hodge, Syst. Theol. 
i. 104, 151. 



THE DIVINE KEVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 91 

the Holy Spirit's dictation, have come down to us — 
following in the footsteps of the orthodox Fathers, 
receives and venerates with equal feeling of piety 
and equal reverence all the books, as well of the Old 
as of the New Testament, the same God being the 
author of both, and also the traditions, whether per- 
taining to faith or morals, which were dictated, so 
to speak by the very lips of Christ or by the Holy 
Spirit, and have been preserved by continuous suc- 
cession in the Catholic Church." 1 

Bellarmin says: "We assert that all essential doc- 
trine, whether as to faith or morals, is not expressly 
contained in the Scriptures, and therefore, besides 
God's written Word, God's unwritten Word (i. e., 
the divine and apostolical traditions) is necessary." 

\ 80. The Official Definition of Tradition, 

Let the official definition of tradition be marked. 
They are doctrines "received from Christ's own lips 
by the apostles," or " handed down by the apostles 
at the Holy Spirit's dictation" to our days. If, then, 
the distinctive doctrines of the Roman Church — 

1 " Synodus . . . hoc sibi perpetuo ante oculos proponens, 
ut sublatis erroribus puritas ipsa evangelii in ecclesia conserve- 
tur . . . perspiciensque hanc veritatem et disciplinam con- 
tineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ex 
ipsius Christi ore ab apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis apostolis, 
Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditae, ad nos usque 
pervenerunt: orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes 
libros tarn V. quam N. T., cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, 
nee non traditiones ipsos, turn ad fidem turn ad mores perti- 
nentes, tamquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu Sancto 
dictatas et continua successione in ecclesia catholic^ conserva- 
tas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur." 
Ibid. pp. 38, 40. 



92 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

Transubstantiation, Eucharistic sacrifice and wor- 
ship, devotion to the Virgin, the Immaculate Con- 
ception, Purgatory, Masses for the Dead — are tra- 
ditions in this sense, we must suppose that they 
were taught by Christ and the apostles, but for some 
reason or other were not recorded, but handed down 
by word of mouth, and only brought out to light 
ages afterwards. It is needless to say that if this 
could be proved, every Christian would at once bow 
to such authority. As matter of fact, the only tra- 
ditions which answer to this definition are those 
contained in Scripture. Where were these doc- 
trines during the long interval between Christ's 
days and the time of their publication? "Preserved 
by continuous succession in the Catholic Church." 
Where, in what writers? 

The Roman Church is not faithful to its only of- 
ficial definition of tradition. A much wider range, 
indeed a totally different meaning, is ascribed to 
the term. The traditions " received from Christ's 
own lips," or " handed down by the apostles at the 
Holy Spirit's dictation," are simply opinions and 
interpretations advanced at different periods by dif- 
ferent teachers, allowed to remain for a longer or 
shorter time in this nebulous condition, then taken 
up, discussed, and stamped with official authority. 
Thus it is evident that some authority is need- 
ed to sit in judgment on these individual opinions, 
and separate the true from the false. The Roman 
Church does not accept all indiscriminately, it re- 
jects many even of Augustine's views. This final 
interpreting authority is the Church, and in the last 
resort (according to the newest definition) the pope. 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 93 

To this the doctrine of Tradition has come. For 
ages it was disputed whether the interpreting au- 
thority was the whole Episcopate speaking through 
General Councils, or the pope, or both combined. 
Now we are told that the voice of the Church is the 
voice of the pope speaking officially. The difference 
is immaterial. 1 

Where is the voice of the Church or the pope to 
be heard? In Papal Bulls, in Canons and Decrees 
of Councils. Nowhere else. None else are infalli- 
ble. A bishop or priest interpreting these is as fal- 
lible as any Protestant teacher. Now the great ar- 
gument against Scripture as the sole divine author- 
ity is its supposed obscurity and difficulty of inter- 
pretation. But what of Papal rescripts and Con- 
ciliar definitions, with their ecclesiastical Latin and 
highly technical phraseology? " Scripture is diffi- 
cult, and needs to be interpreted." Here is the in- 
terpreter — the Canons and Decrees of the Council 
of Trent, the Bull IneffaUUs of December 8, 1854, 
etc.! This is called explaining the obscure by the 
simple! 2 If it be said that, as in other concerns of 
life, we may trust competent interpreters, may not 
precisely the same be said of Scripture? What have 
we gained on the head of directness or greater sim- 
plicity? Besides, where is the infallible teaching 

1 Conc. Trid. sess. iv.: "Sancta mater ecclesia, cujus est judi- 
care de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum Sanctarum": 
Winer, p. 50. "The Catholic Church enjoys to-day the same 
authority and the same divine assistance as in the days of the 
apostles ; it therefore possesses the same infallibility " : Malou 
quoted in Winer, p. 41. 2 See the alleged obscurity of Scrip- 
ture fully and conclusively discussed in Dean Jackson, Works, 
Bk. ii. chs, xii -xvi. 



94 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

which was held out as a bait? We are no nearer 
to it than before. We are left as much as ever at 
the mercy of fallible teachers and of our own under- 
standing. 

One retort we cannot withhold. A favorite pop- 
ular argument of Roman disputants is that on the 
Protestant standpoint divine authority attaches to 
the original text of Scripture only, and that in trust- 
ing to translations we have only human authority. 
So, we may reply, on the Roman theory divine au- 
thority belongs only to the ipslssima verba of Papal 
and Conciliar decrees and definitions, not to any 
translations of them. How are we better off, if 
we are left to the teaching of fallible bishops and 
priests? 

| 81. Alleged Advantages Considered. 

Another argument in favor of a living infallible 
interpreter is the alleged incompleteness of Scrip- 
ture. The inspired Epistles are a supplement to the 
Gospels. But where is there any hint of a further 
designed supplement of the same kind? 

Another alleged advantage of such a standing au- 
thority is just as illusory. It is supposed to deliver 
us from the uncertainty and liability to err belong- 
ing to private judgment. But is no action of indi- 
vidual judgment necessary in the Roman Catholic? 
Has he not to decide on the claims of the Church? 
Must he not satisfy himself, first, that it was Christ's 
will that the Church should possess this power, and 
secondly, that the Roman Church is the Church? 
The first is a question of Scripture interpretation, 
the second involves a vast historical investigation. 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 95 

^Ye think that anyone competent to decide these 
questions is a fortiori competent to decide any ques- 
tion of essential Christian doctrine, and shall con- 
tinue to think so until we see proof to the contrary. 
The latter question especially is one that would tax 
the greatest powers. The authority of the Church 
cannot be appealed to, for it is this very authority 
that is in question. To take such a conclusion on 
trust is not very rational. The only difference then 
between Romanist and Protestant is that the former 
brings his judgment to bear on a different and vast- 
ly more difficult question. He decides, as the result 
of inquiry, that the Church is the authority which 
God intends him to trust absolutely. And yet there 
is no action of private judgment in the Romanist 
position! The fact is, the acceptance of the entire 
theory rests and can rest on nothing else. A Ro- 
manist performs a gigantic act of decision once for 
all, a Protestant spreads it over the whole of life. 
The former, because he is not always deciding, 
thinks he never does so. Really it is very unkind 
and unwise in writers to say such harsh things of a 
pow r er on which their own position depends. In- 
deed, it is more than unwise, it is suicidal. Unless 
the action of the human mind, under proper guards 
and checks, is to be trusted, the Roman as well as 
the Protestant case is lost. To decide, as the Ro- 
manist does, by means of private judgment that pri- 
vate judgment in matters of faith is wrong and a 
root of all evil, is a strange proceeding. 

The difficulty of interpreting Scripture is im- 
mensely exaggerated, for a purpose. No doubt 
there is difficulty enough in all that relates to points 



96 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

of language, history, science, chronology, and so 
forth. But these matters are quite apart from the 
knowledge necessary to Christian living. The two 
things, however, are dexterously and fallaciously 
mixed up. But does infallibility give any aid in in- 
quiries into the subjects which form the real diffi- 
culty of Scripture? Are Roman exegetes and schol- 
ars in advance of Protestant? Is the humble mem- 
ber of the Roman communion wiser on such ques- 
tions than an ordinary Protestant? We trow not. 
The dissensions springing from the exercise of pri- 
vate judgment are exaggerated in the same way. 
As has been already shown, there is far greater unity 
of belief among Christian Churches than is gener- 
ally supposed. 

A strong objection to the Roman theory is that 
it weakens the sense of individual responsibility. 
Blind belief and obedience become the highest vir- 
tue. Where else is such unreasoning, indiscrimi- 
nate submission and dependence required of us? 
Why should we suppose that to be the law in the 
religious life which is the law nowhere else? Ev- 
erywhere else the consciousness of responsibility, 
of the possibility of mistake, is the keenest spur to 
caution and energetic effort. Remove this, and we 
sink into slaves and machines, the greatest check 
upon error and fraud is destroyed. Dependence, 
indeed, is the natural condition of childhood; and 
the strongest condemnation of the whole tendency 
of Roman teaching is that it keeps Christians in a 
state of perpetual childhood: moral independence, 
and the strength that comes of it, are at an end. 

It is a mistake to suppose that Protestantism un- 
dervalues the traditions and teachings of the Church 



THE DIVINE BEYELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 97 

as such. It simply repudiates Tradition as a co- 
ordinate authority with Scripture, practically above 
Scripture. In every other aspect Protestantism val- 
ues at its highest the light to be gained from the 
unfolding thought of the Church. Fathers, doc- 
tors, schoolmen, Reformers, are all witnesses and 
teachers from whom there is much to be learned. 

I 82, Newman's Theory of Development. 

Dr. Newman, in his theory of development, gave 
a new form to the Roman argument. According to 
this theory, the specially Roman doctrines are not 
present in Scripture, but are developed out of germs 
in Scripture. It is evident that we here come back 
to the same view of the Church as an infallible in- 
terpreter, because amid the countless developments 
that have appeared we need some authority to sep- 
arate the true from the false. We can as little dis- 
cover the supposed germs in Scripture as the fully 
formed doctrine. But then we are told, "The 
Church discovers them there," and we have to ac- 
quiesce. 1 

Moreover, the interpreting authority of the Church 
is itself a development. If it guarantees every- 
thing else, what guarantees it? We are said to re- 
ceive the Scriptures on the authority of the Church. 
Yes, we reply, on its authority as a witness, but not 
as a judge. If in the letter sense, how is the au- 
thority of the Church established but by the au- 
thority of Scripture? If Augustine meant the lat- 
ter in the oft-quoted words, "Evangelio non crede- 

1 Mozley, Theory of Development ; Archer Butler, Letters on 
Romanism. 
7 



98 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

rem nisi me Ecelesiae Catholicte commoveret auo 
toritas," lie is entangled in this vicious circle. 1 

Again, no such living authoritative interpreter 
was known in Judaism, where it would have been 
more necessary, if necessary at all. The rabbins, 
indeed, claimed such authority for their interpre- 
tations, but we know how Christ treated the claim. 
To set up such authority now is to make Christian- 
ity less free and spiritual than Judaism. 

There is, indeed, a true doctrine of development, 
which is a universal law of life; every doctrine has 
undergone change of form. But to apply the term 
to quite new doctrines is a misnomer. For the rest, 

1 "If they say, 'We must believe the Scriptures to be the 
word of God before we can believe the infallibility of their 
Church/ they overthrow their own and establish our own 
positions. For thus they make the Scripture a rule of our 
faith, at the least in this one article of the Catholic Church's 
infallibility. . . . But if the Scriptures may be the im- 
mediate and infallible rule of their belief in this article, 
what reason possibly can be imagined why they should not 
be the infallible and immediate rule of their faith in all 
other parts or articles of their creed? For I call heaven 
and earth, men and angels, to witness betwixt ours and the 
Romish Church, whether the articles of Christ's Incarnation, 
his Death, his Passion, his Burial, his Resurrection, his 
Ascension, his Intercession for us, the Resurrection of the 
Dead and Life Everlasting, etc., be not to any man's ca- 
pacity in the world, much more plainly set down in sundry 
places of Scripture, than the infallibility of the present 
Romish Church, in these words, 'Peter, feed my sheep; 
Peter, to thee I give the keys of heaven; Thou art Peter, 
and upon this rock I will build my Church. It seemed good 
to the Holy Ghost and us:' or in any place her sons can chal- 
lenge for it." Jackson, Bk. ii. ch. xxx. 9, and all the chs. 
xix.-xxxi. 



THE DIVINE REVELATION IN SCRIPTURE. 99 

the theory of Dr. Newrnan has not found much fa- 
vor in the Roman Church, for it gives up the old 
claim of antiquity made in behalf of Roman doc- 
trine. 

It is evident that the Roman doctrine of the 
Church is fundamental. It carries all the rest. If 
there is such an infallible interpreter of the divine 
will, a standing organ of revelation, we have no 
choice but to believe whatever it says. And if there 
is not, the entire Roman system collapses. 

I 83. Literature. 

On Canon, see Westcott, Hist, of Canon of N. T. ; 
Charteris, X. T. Scriptures, their Claims, etc.; Reuss, 
History of the Canon; Redford, Christian's Plea 
Against Modern Unbelief, p. 361. 

[Of works on Romanism in English easily accessi- 
ble the following may be mentioned: Capper, The 
Acknowledged Doctrines of the Church of Rome, 
London, 2 vols., 1849 ; Elliott, Delineation of Roman 
Catholicism, New York, 2 vols., 1811; Froude, Lec- 
tures on the Council of Trent, New York, 1896; Cate- 
chism of the Council of Trent, New York: The Cath- 
olic Publication Society. — J. J. T.] 



$8L Ea 


HENCE a 


NO AZ 


IBLZ 


zeiz 


DTES a: 


rn PZZ 


ric. 


- ■ s 


-- T ?! 


AZ5C 


<zz: 


BUT! 


J D B I 


I '. z 


'.'- ■: - . 


Tz:z>z 


[CAL 1 




Tsi: 


city— ; c 


i, Ozz 


' Tz 


G UM 


zy:-;^ 


:. EZZZ 


BZi 


Ebb 


ob— \ -rS, 


E Li 


JUKI 


EEL] 


t-IAMSM 


— ;" - -". 


Pz: 


Gzz~ 


ZZ.AZIG2 


i A N D 


— ; : 


:-i. Tzz 


Pt.oc: 


:ss: 


Smb 


zz— \ ::: 


'. Thz 


Tz< 



CHAPTER V. 

THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES—THE TRINITY. 

tzs— ZS'. T^-o Pzzvaxzvz Ebbob.5— ;; ^3. AZ- 

,:o Lj-tz-z;, a Tb— h oz Ez-zzaz:ov_ 

Szazzz:znzs— ;c7. Do-siza Dzzinzs against 

I. ATTELBlTES. 

£; 84. Essence and Attributes. 
The relation of essence or substance to attribute is 
not readily defined. Is the essence simply the sum 
of the attributes? Are the attributes simply the 
unfolding of the essence? In other words, are the 
two things identical or different? In favor of a 
difference the usage of thought and language may 
be appealed to. Substance is conceived as under- 
lying attribute, attribute as characterizing sub- 
stance. If the distinction of the two is a necessity 
of thought, this is a strong argument in favor of a 
real distinction. It may then be ashed. If essence 
is different from attributes, what is it? Take the 
attributes away, and where is the essence? It may 
be impossible to give an answer, and yet insepara- 
ble things are not necessarily identical. The point 
is immaterial to us here. 
(100) 



THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. 101 

I 85. Two Prevalent Errors. 
We have, however, to guard against the two most 
prevalent errors respecting the nature of the divine 
attributes. One is, that they are simply human con- 
ceptions, with nothing corresponding to them in the 
divine nature. Although, it is said, we cannot help 
forming such conceptions, we must remember that 
they are mere anthropomorphisms on our part and 
accommodations on God's. This mode of thought 
has always been popular among writers of a philo- 
sophical cast, such as Augustine, Aquinas, the 
Scholastics, and some Lutheran and Reformed di- 
vines. 1 Mediaeval Nominalism also favored it. 2 
But it is most unreal and unmeaning. Whence do 
we obtain the conceptions but from Scripture? Is 
the revelation there given a mere illusion? If man 
is made in God's image, must not his nature be an in- 
dex of the divine? When we are told to ignore all 
distinctions, and to think of God as simple, abstract 
being, essence, or act, we find it difficult to obey. 
Is it not enough at every step to bear in mind the 
imperfection of human language, and to try to avoid 
everything unworthy of God? To class the divine 
attributes with such anthropomorphisms as as- 
cribe human organs to God is strange confusion. 
Martensen describes the attributes truly enough as 
"not human modes of apprehending God, but God's 
mode of revealing himself/' A kindred error con- 
sists in the denial of all distinction between the 
attributes themselves. The same .criticism applies 

1 " Et sic intellectus noster distinguit quae a parte rei distincta 
non sunt." The truth is, the attributes are neither more nor 
less distinct in God than the analogous qualities in us. 2 Blunt, 
Diet. Theology, " Conceptualism." 



102 DOCTBINES PRESUPPOSED IN BEDEMPTION. 

here. We can no more conceive of power and knowl- 
edge as identical in God than in ourselves. And 
are these two attributes more distinct than justice 
and love? 

I 88. Attributes and Predicates. 

Attributes are to be distinguished from predicates, 
such as Creator, Ruler, etc. The latter are derived 
from divine acts, and are indefinitely numerous. 
The former are permanent characteristics of the 
divine nature, and are limited in number. 

\ 87. Classification of the Attributes. 

It is not easy to find a classification of the divine 
attributes, perfectly free from objection. 1 In the 
middle ages, a threefold classification was gener- 
ally adopted, via negationis, eminentice, catisoMtaiis. 
Denying imperfections of God gives us one class; 
affirming good qualities in the highest degree, the 
second; the necessity for a cause, the third. The 
modern arrangement is a twofold one. x\bsolute, 
essential, immanent, quiescent, incommunicable at- 
tributes are set in contrast with relative, transitive, 
etc. Objections may be raised against every divi- 
sion. The chief point is to remember that no divi- 
sion is perfect. The terms absolute and relative are 
as acceptable as any. Under the former term are 
included the attributes which belong to the Divine 
Being in himself, apart from creation; under the 
latter, such as belong to him in relation to creatures. 
The latter are subdivided into those relating to all 
creatures and those relating to moral creatures only. 

1 Luthardt, Comp. d. Dogmatik, p. 87; Hodge, Syst. Theol. i. 
374; Pope, Comp. i. 289; Dorner, Syst. Christian Doctr. i. 420; 
Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, p. 91. 



THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. 103 

But we must be careful to avoid the notion that the 
relative attributes originate anything new in God, 
they can only be the manifestation of powers al- 
ready existing. Every divine attribute is necessa- 
rily existent, but not necessarily active. 

It is scarcely accurate to reckon spirituality and 
infinity as attributes. God is spirit (John iv. 24). 
Spirit is his essence. We know the nature of spirit 
to some extent from ourselves. We know it as the 
seat of knowledge, feeling, and action, in a word, as 
the seat of personality; and the divine perfections 
will be found to come under one or other of these 
heads. But we have only an imperfect conception 
of pure spirit. The fact that the very word spirit, 
and all terms denoting spiritual powers and acts, are 
taken in the first instance from material things, 
makes it difficult for us to exclude material notions 
altogether. Add infinite, and we have a brief defi- 
nition of God — infinite Spirit, i. e., a Spirit infinite 
in all the attributes of spirit. Like absolute, the 
term infinite is vague, and needs to be defined. Fill 
it with such contents as power, etc., and the several 
divine attributes follow. Whether infinite is a pos- 
itive or negative idea is a disputed point, Although 
the term is negative, the idea need not be so. In 
our attempts to approach the infinite, the finite is 
our starting point, and every enlargement of the 
idea represents our effort to leave the finite behind. 
Here especially the difference between apprehen- 
sion and comprehension is to be borne in mind. 
Both, however, represent real knowledge. 

One of the most august features of the divine ex- 
istence is that it is self -existence, unoriginated, nec- 
essary, independent, the cause of all other existence, 



104 DOCTRINES PBESUPI . BDSMFEIC 

itself uncaused. Even the phras 

times to the Divine Being, is wrung. He 

could not but be: he cool 

He is at once the most necessary an 

all beings. 

: 88. The Absolute Attributes. 

The Absolute attributes made prominent in Scrip- 
ture are Eternity and Immutability, both in awful 
contrast with ereaturely existence. Eternity is in- 
finity in duration. The ninetieth Psalm is a mag- 
nificent tribute to its glory. It is generally thought 
of as excluding the successions : past, present, 
future, which are designations of time. Augustine 
defines it as that in which fuisse et fui ssa 

' : " esse. Time began with the world. It 

is a question, however, whether in using such lan- 
guage we are not using words witJ ic at meaning to 
us. Certain it is that w m only think ol eternity 
as unbeginning and unending time Immutabi 
is akin to eternity. Bee James L 17; Psalm eii 25- 
27. Immutability refers to the divine nature i 
character, not to divine action. It does not | 
elude acts of creation, of redemption, and retril 
tion. God changes his works without changing his 
Qsels. says Augustine. To Augustine this was 
the dominating attribute. 

: 89. The Relative Attributes. 

The Eelative attributes are On ' ~ ! 

mipresenee Infinite " ' and Good- 
ness. Omnipotence is infinity in power, and may be 
defined as the power to do everything th at is a con- 
ceivable >bject >f rer. A contradiction is not 

this (Matthew xix. 26). A distinction is sometii 



THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. 105 

made between potentia absoluta and potentia ordi- 
nata. The former is God's free unconditioned pow- 
er, the second his power as conditioned by sec- 
ond causes. Omniscience is infinity in knowledge 
(Psalm cxlvii. 5; Hebrews iv. 13;. Although be- 
longing to the relative attributes in one respect, om- 
niscience no less rightly belongs to the essential. 
The divine knowledge is incapable of growth. Once 
God knew himself and knew creation as possible; 
now he knows creation as actual. A difficulty has 
been raised to the effect that omniscience involves 
predestination, and does away with human freedom. 
How can an act be certainly foreknown and yet 
free? But the nature of knowledge must be re- 
membered. It no more influences* action in God 
than in us. God may foreknow without foreordain- 
ing. God's knowledge does not determine our ac- 
tion, but the converse. At all events we are free, 
and God does foreknow. Both facts are equally 
certain. The objection would also make God the 
author of evil, for he certainly foresees evil, as 
prophecy proves. Distinctions have been drawn be- 
tween scientia naturalis, libera, and media. 1 The first 
is God's necessary knowledge of himself and his 
acts; the second, his knowledge of things dependent 
on his will ; the third, his knowledge of what would 
take place in circumstances different from the actual 
ones. For the latter, see Matthew xi. 23 ; 1 Samuel 
xxiii. 12. When Omnipresence is distinguished 
from Immensity, by the latter is meant God's tran- 
scendence above space, by the former his intimate 
presence in space (Jeremiah xxiii. 24 ; Psalm cxxxix. 
7-12). His presence must be thought of as real, not 
iLuthardt, p. 290. 



106 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

merely a presence by influence and operation. As 
far as possible, we must put away all material ideas 
of extension and diffusion. Wisdom is applied 
knowledge, using the best means for the best ends. 
It has been argued that the idea of the use of means, 
and so of wisdom, implies imperfection, and is a 
mark of the creature. This term, like all others, 
needs to be modified and corrected when applied to 
the Divine Being. In the divine w^orks the distinc- 
tion between means and ends is less sharply drawn. 
Both in nature and grace the same acts wear both 
characters; the means are ends, and the ends are 
means. The Goodness spoken of under this head 
means Benevolence, not moral rectitude. Misery, 
which is the consequence of sin, is no impeachment 
of the divine goodness. The real difficulty is the 
permission of moral evil, which must be argued on 
other grounds (Psalm xxxiii. 5). 

§ 90. Justice and Love. 
The Attributes referring to moral beings may be 
summed up under two heads, Justice and Love. Ho- 
liness again is a convenient designation to include 
both. Both in the Old Testament and the New, 
justice and love are constantly distinguished from 
each other, and are celebrated with equal emphasis. 
One may, in a sense, be called the virtue of the Old 
Testament, and the other of the New, the Old Testa- 
ment giving prominence to righteousness, the New 
to love. Still the two covenants acknowledge both 
attributes as equally essential to God. God's eter- 
nal hatred of sin is as certain as his love of sinners. 
Faithfulness and truth are righteousness in word. 
Grace, compassion, mercy, complacency, are differ- 
ent forms of love. 



THE TBIHITY. 107 

Attempts are made in some quarters to resolve 
justice into love. But the distinction is too em- 
phatically drawn in Scripture to allow this to be 
done. According to this representation, God's acts 
in punishing sin and rewarding virtue are expres- 
sions of the same feeling. If Scripture uses differ- 
ent language so habitually to express the same 
meaning, it is most confusing and misleading. 1 
John iv. 8 is quoted, but see also 1 John i. 5. The 
distinction is confirmed by human reason and ex- 
perience. Justice demands, love gives; one seeks 
right, the other happiness; one insists on what is 
due, the other foregoes what is due. 1 The two qual- 
ities are certainly not opposed to each other; they 
are in perfect harmony, but they belong to different 
relations. A just character and a loving character 
are different in conception. They suggest different 
ideas and awaken different feelings. Quite as good 
a case might be made out for resolving love into 
justice. 

Man having been made in the divine image, all 
the divine attributes are reflected in his nature. 
Naturally, as well as morally, he is a partaker in the 
divine nature. It is easy to see that the considera- 
tion of God's perfections supplies abundant motive 
for reverence, fear, and trust. 2 

II. THE TEINITY. 
§91. A Truth, of Revelation, 

The existence of a distinction of persons in the 
Godhead is a truth of pure revelation. It could be 

1 German writers say, the principle of one attribute is self- 
affirmation, of the other self-communication. 2 Charnock, Dis- 
courses on Divine Essence and Attributes; Dean Jackson, Trea- 
tise of Divine Essence and Attributes, Bk. vi. 



DOC miNEfl PBE8U1 I _ 3EI DS _._ 

known in no other 

ner life of the Godhead, the constiti : his na- 

ture (1 Corinthians ii. 11). The doctrine includes 
elements, unity and distinction, ach element 
-g equal.; essential So far from the doctrine 
ag inconsistent with the divine unity, the Unity 
is an integral part of the Trinity. The removal of 
the unity would as effectually destroy the idea of 
the Trinity as the removal of the distinction. 1 The 
combination of the two elements involves no logical 
contradiction, because they refer to the Godhead in 
differeL jets, one to the nature, the other to 

the persons. The mere fact of incomprehensible 
mystery is no objection, every truth respecting God 
being no less mysterious. 

: 92. TecLni:-=l Terms: Person. 
Of the technical terms used on this subject (Trin- 
ity, nature, essence, person), the most important one 
is person (subsistence, hypostasis), which is em- 
ployed in a special sense. It must not be under- 
stood as when used of human beings, a sense which 
would result in Tritheism. 2 The term was selected 

1 "Xeither conform ding the persons, nor dividing the sab- 
stance": Athan. Creed. 2 " Dictum est tres persons, non nt 
illud dieeretur, sed ne taceretur omnino; non enim rei inefla- 
bilis eminentia hoc vocabnlo expiicari valet": Aug. Tr:::. v, 
Owen in his treatise on the Trinity is able as ever, W ^ ; 
377. He distinguishes between the "substance'' of the i 
trine and its technical statement!?, argoing cogently the nee 
sity and nse of technical terms. Objectors are fond, he says, 
attacking the latter while ignoring the former. a Their dispu 
and cavils shall be against the Trinity, essence, substance, persor 
ity, respects, properties of the divine persons, with the modes 
expressing these things; whilst the plain scriptural relation 
the things themselves, from whence they are but explanatc 
deductions, is not spoken to nor admitted into confirmation.' 



THE TRINITY. 109 

in early days, in order to indicate that the distinc- 
tion meant is more than one of aspect or attribute, 
which was the Sabellian view. It may not be easy 
to preserve the mean between Sabellianism and Tri- 
theism, but it is necessary. 1 

\ 93. Immanent and Economical Trinity, 
A distinction is sometimes made between the Im- 
manent (or Essential) and Economical (Dispensa- 
tional, Revealed) Trinity, but it is a very formal one. 
The latter implies and rests upon the former, unless 
we are to accept Sabellianism. 2 

A. — DOCTRINE OF TRINITY. 

The sole question is, Does Scripture teach this 
doctrine? We say, it does, in three ways. 
\ 94. Old Testament Intimations. 

The doctrine is not one of those clearly made 
known in the Old Testament. Those who discover 
it there do so by means of light reflected from the 

lu To return to the personality of God and man, it comes 
to this, that with all simplicity of mind we must receive 
God's three propositions, that three persons of men are 
three beings, three persons of angels are three beings, the 
three persons in God are not three beings; so that, in theol- 
ogizing, I have risen to the word 'person/ and found in it 
a certain uniqueness of meaning, which is an induction 
from Scripture texts; leaving the mystery which is round 
about it as an ultimatum, which I cannot use in deductive 
reasoning. But I need some word to express the distinction 
within the divine nature, and I find the personal pronoun 
'He/ and a personal act, 'He will send'": Duncan, Collo- 
quia Peripatetica, p. 105. "A divine person is nothing but 
the divine essence, upon the account of an especial property, 
subsisting in an especial manner": Owen. See his reply 
to objections, Works, ii. 409. 2 Pope, Comp. i. 255, 363; 
Blunt, Diet. Theol. "Trinity." 



110 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

New. The fact that the Jews did not know the 
doctrine is sufficient proof that it is not an Old Tes- 
tament doctrine. It may seem strange that so great 
a truth was kept in reserve; but this was only in 
accordance with the law of development which gov- 
erns all revelation. It is a question whether there 
is not as great an advance in respect to other truths. 
A reason for the divine reserve may perhaps be 
found in the necessity for time to allow the doctrine 
of the divine Unity to take deep root in human 
thought. The proneness of the Jews to idolatry is 
evident enough from their history. And we can 
easily see that such a doctrine as that of the Trinity 
might have been perverted in the same direction. 
Still there are hints, which readily expand into the 
New Testament doctrine. 

a. The use of the divine name in a plural form 
(Elohim), along with a verb singular, is certainly 
remarkable (Genesis i. 1, 26), especially remember- 
ing the stress laid on the divine Unity and the idol- 
atrous tendency of the Jews. If the phrase is to be 
explained as a plural of majesty or an anticipation 
of royal style, why is not the verb plural too? That 
the phrase is a remnant of polytheism may be as- 
serted, but cannot be proved. The triple Benedic- 
tion (Numbers vi. 24-26) and Doxology (Isaiah vi. 3) 
may also be referred to in the same connection. 

b. There is a remarkable series of incidents in the 
Old Testament which seem to be more than angelic 
appearances, and which are best explained as The- 
ophanies. 1 The speaker is an angel, and yet more 
than angel. The divine name and authority are 

1 Oehler, Theology of Old Testament, i. 188. 



THE TRINITY. Ill 

used in a way that is^out of place in a creature. An 
ambassador never speaks as the angel does. There 
has always been a school of exposition that has seen 
in this angel the Son of God anticipating the Incar- 
nation. Observe the case of Abraham, Genesis xviii. 
17; Jacob, xxxii. 24 (Hosea xii. 4, 5); Joshua, Joshua 
v. 14; Moses, Exodus xxiii. 20; the scene at Bochim, 
Judges ii. 1-5; Manoah, xiii. 20-23; Malachi iii. 1. 

c. In the book of Proverbs (ch. viii.), Wisdom 
speaks like a person. If this is a mere poetical per- 
sonification, it is a striking one. Philo's doctrine of 
the Word at Alexandria grew out of Solomon's use 
of the term Wisdom. There is a great interval, how- 
ever, between Philo's Word and St. John's. Even 
if the first is personal, it is a creature. 1 

d. Prophecy describes the person and work of the 
Messiah in terms that point to a divine Being. We 
rely less on particular names and titles than upon 
the entire position assigned to him, and the char- 
acter of the work he was to do. Whether the Jews 
expected the Messiah to be divine is uncertain ; and 
whether they did or not, we can judge of the range of 
prophecy for ourselves. See Genesis iii. 15; Psalms 
ii., xlv.; Isaiah vi., vii., ix., xlii.; Micah v. 2, etc. 

$ 95. Inferential Argument. 
Scripture, on the one hand, undeniably teaches 
the Unity of God. Of this there is no question any- 
where. On the other hand, it speaks just as clearly 
of three divine persons, distinguished from each oth- 
er in name and office, and yet standing in certain 

x See Westcott, In trod, to Comm. on St. John's Gospel, p. 
xviii.; Jackson, Works, Bk, vii. ch. xxvii.; Schaff's Comm. on 
St. John, p. 3. 



112 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

definite relations to each other and to the world. 
The only way of explaining and harmonizing these, 
at first sight discrepant, teachings, is the doctrine 
of the Trinity. 

a. The divine Unity is taught. There is no need 
to argue this. 

b. Three divine persons are spoken of. 

The Father is again and again distinguished from 
the Son and the Spirit. 

Christ is represented as the divine Son of God. 
The proof of this is reserved until we come to the 
doctrine of Christ's Person. Here the fact is as- 
sumed. 

The Holy Spirit is spoken of as a divine Person. 
The proof may conveniently be indicated here. He 
is called God, cf. Acts xxviii. 25 and Isaiah vi. 0; 
Acts v. 3, 4. He is the object of blasphemy, Mat- 
thew xii. 31. He is the agent in Regeneration, John 
i. 13, iii. 6, and Sanctification, 2 Thessalonians ii. 13; 
1 Peter i. 2. He performs miracles, Acts ii. 1, x. 45; 
Romans xv. 19; Hebrews ii. 4. He is the source of 
Inspiration, 1 Peter i. 11; 2 Peter i. 21; Ephesians 
iii. 5; Hebrews iii. 7. He is Creator, Genesis i. 2, 
omnipresent and omniscient, Psalm cxxxix. 7; 1 
Corinthians ii. 10. 1 

That the Spirit is a person is clearly show y n by the 
use of the masculine pronoun (eKeli/o?) in John xvi. 
7, 13, xv. 26. This is the more striking, as the pro- 
noun is in apposition with a neuter noun. He 
makes intercession, Romans viii. 26; testifies, teach- 
es, hears and speaks, bestows gifts, etc. See also 
Acts x. 19, xiii. 2. 2 

1 Barrow on Apostles' Creed, Serm. xxxiv. 2 Sraeaton, Doctr. 
of the Holy Spirit, Cunningham Lect. (Clark) ; Donne, Sermons 
on Whitsunday, i. 515, and vol. ii. 



THE TRINITY. 113 

c. Since there is but one God, and Father, Son, 
and Spirit are each God, it is clear that within the 
divine unity there are personal distinctions. The 
only other possible interpretation is the Sabellian 
one, to the effect that Father, Son, and Spirit are 
simply different aspects or manifestations of God. 
But this is excluded by the sharp distinctions drawn 
in Scripture between Father, Son, and Spirit. The 
Father loves and sends the Son; the Son leaves and 
returns to the Father, loves, intercedes with, and 
prays to the Father. So the Father and Son send 
the Spirit; the Spirit intercedes with the Father — 
the Spirit takes Christ's place. If, then, Father, 
Son, and Spirit are only God under different aspects, 
the Xew Testament is a mass of confusion. 

I 96, Express Statements. 

The terms of the Baptismal formula, Matthew 
xxviii. 19, and Apostolic Benediction, 2 Corinthians 
xiii. 14, should be carefully considered. See also 
Ephesians ii. 18; Jude 20, 21; 1 Peter i. 2. 

B. — DOGMA OF TRINITY. 

I 97. Dogma Defines Against Error. 

We have hitherto dealt with the doctrine of Scrip- 
ture on the present subject, but every doctrine has 
also a dogmatic form. Doctrine summarizes the 
statements of Scripture on a particular point, add- 
ing and diminishing nothing; dogma formulates the 
principles and relations involved in the doctrine and 
the inferences following from it. Every dogma, 
therefore, is of the nature of a theory, giving the 
rationale of the facts. Owing to the rise of error 
8 



114 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IX REDEMPTION. 

and controversy, the dogma of the Church on the 
present subject was formulated early, assuming its 
final shape in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, 
and has never been altered since. 

I 98. Romanist and Rationalist View of Dogma. 
For different reasons. Romanises and Rational- 
ists are fond of saying that we owe the dogma of 
the Trinity, not to Scripture, but to the Church: 
the former, that they may compel us to receive 
other dogmas on the same authority: the latter. 
that they may discredit the doctrine altogether. 
The reply to both is. that although the form of 
the dogma is due to the Church, the substance 
is found in Scripture. Let the Romanist satisfv 
us that the same can be said of his special dog- 
mas, and we will receive them. Let the Rationalist 
satisfy us that the substance of the dogma is not 
scriptural, and we will discard it. as he has done. 
The form or technical statement is useful as a test 
of accurate interpretation of Scripture and a guard 
against error, but it is not essential. The Church 
did without it once, and could do without it again. 
It may be technically true to say that the Ante- 
Xieene Church had no dogma of the Trinity, just as 
ordinary Christians have none now. But both the 
one and the other worship the Son and the Spirit 
as divine persons: and where this is done we have 
the material facts of the case. That the A.nte-Xi- 
cene Church was Trinitarian in this sense, i. c. as 
ordinary Christians are Trinitarian now, is amply 
shown by Dr. Burton in his Ante-Xicene Testimo- 
nies. 1 



2 See Treffrv. Doctr, of Eternal Sonship, p. 421. 



THE TRINITY. 115 

I 99. Sabellianism, 
The, first occasion of the formal definition of the 
doctrine was the appearance of the Sabellian error, 
which was known also as Monarchianism and Pa- 
tripassianism. 1 Sabellianism had two phases. Ac- 
cording to one, the three persons are simply differ- 
ent aspects of God — the Father is God immanent, 
the Son God revealed, the Spirit God active. Prax- 
eas (200 A.D.), against whom Tertullian wrote, Sa- 
bellius of Ptolemais, Noetus of Smyrna (230), Beryl- 
lus of Bostra (250), converted to orthodoxy by Ori- 
gen, held this view. According to the other opin- 
ion, held by Artemon, Theodotus (two persons of 
this name) and Paul of Samosata (260), the Son and 
Spirit are powers emanating from God. One view 
makes the Son and Spirit divine, the other antici- 
pates Arianism. In both cases there is no personal 
distinction, the Trinity is only a nominal one. Sa- 
bellianism never had much influence in the Church, 
and w r as never the creed of a community; it is too 
obviously opposed to the teaching of Scripture. 
There have often been individual cases of Sabellian- 
ism. In modern days Schleiermacher and Eothe 
occupy this position. 2 

\ 100. Arianism. 

The second occasion was Arianism, a much more 

formidable error. Arianism — originated by Arius, 

an Alexandrian presbyter— directly denied Christ's 

Deity, and so made a Trinity impossible. Accord- 

J Luthardt, Comp. d. Dogmatik, p. 100. 2 Blunt, Diet, of 
Sects, etc., p. 510; Diet, of Theol. passim; Pope, Comp. i. 272, 
and Fernley, Lect.; Shedd, Hist. Christian Doctr. i. 257; Dor- 
ner, Syst. Christian Doctr. i. 367. 



116 DOCTBINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

ing to Arianisrn, Christ was a super-angelic crea- 
ture, the first creature, through whom all other crea- 
tures were made. Preexistence was ascribed to 
him, but not eternity — divinity, but not deity (OaoTrjs, 
Romans i. 20; but not Ocottjs, Colossians ii. 9). He 
was a fallible creature, actually but not necessarily 
impeccable. Arianism had a long history, rising 
and falling with the favor of the imperial court. 
Athanasius was the leading champion against it, 
and through his influence it was condemned at the 
first General Council of Mcaea, 325 A.D. Great dif- 
ficulty was experienced in finding a decisive test of 
the views held by Arians. They were ready to as- 
cribe the divine name and attributes, as well as di- 
vine worship, to Christ — of course in a secondary, 
delegated sense, as the Socinians did in later days. 
But they could not ascribe eternity to Christ. Ac- 
cording to them, " there was once a time when he 
was not." Nor could they say that he was "of the 
same substance" with the Father, 6/xoovo-ios. They 
said that he was "of like substance," ofioiovo-ios, 
which is true of man. Accordingly, these two points 
became the accepted tests of Arian views and of 
the true Deity of Christ. The clauses, "Begotten, 
not made, being of one substance with the Father," 
in the Nicene Creed, condemn Arianism. 1 Arian- 
ism again has never been the creed of any sect in the 
Church, but there have been individual Arians. 2 

1 en rfjq ovoiaq rov irarp6g y yevvrjBeiQ oh TroirjBeig^ ojuoovgioq tC irarpi. 
See also first part of Athanasian Creed. 2 On Arianism, see 
Blunt, Diet, of Sects, etc., p. 44; Diet, of Theol. "Arianism," 
"Nicene Creed; " Pope, Comp. i. 274, and Fernley Lect.; Shedd, 
Hist. Christian Doctr. i. 307; Newman, Arians of the Fourth 
Century ; Dorner, Syst. Christian Doctr. i. 371. On Nicene Coun- 
cil generally, see Stanley, Eastern Church, Lect. ii.-v. 



THE TRINITY. 117 

1 101. The Council of Nicaea. 

The Council of Xicsea merely put into formal shape 
what had been taught substantially by writers like 
Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Origen. The term "trin- 
itas" appears first in Tertullian. 1 Origen greatly 
influenced the development of thought on the ques- 
tion. He asserted the eternal generation, laid just 
emphasis on the distinction of the divine persons, 
and gave currency to the Scripture term "Son" in 
preference to "Logos;" but, failing to lay equal 
stress on the unity of nature, and giving too great 
prominence to the subordination of the Son, he un- 
consciously paved the way for Arian teaching. He 
called the Father 6 0eos, the Son #eos. He would 
not call the Son avroOeos, and thought ojuloovo-los fa- 
vored Sabellianism, which certainly proves that he 
was no Sabellian. 

1 102. Generation and Procession. 

The internal relations of the Trinity which it is 
important to notice are the Eternal Generation Qf 
the Son and the Eternal Proeession of the Holy Spir- 
it. These are names for mysterious, hyperphysical 
processes, which we can only accept on trust. What 
the difference is between generation and proces- 
sion no one can explain. Pearson ventures to say, 
"Though everything which is begotten proceedeth, 
yet everything which proceedeth is not begotten." 2 

§ 103. The Generation of the Son. 
The idea of Generation is implied in the title 
"Son." Strong objection has been made against 

1 In the treatise against the Sabellian Praxeas. 2 Blunt, Diet. 
Theol. " Procession/' " Eternal Generation." 



118 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

the phrases Eternal Generation and Eternal Son as 
a combination of contradictory terms. Generation 
and sonship imply posteriority in time, which eter- 
nity directly excludes. The objection is conclusive 
if such terms are applied to the divine life in precise- 
ly the same sense as to human, but it is not so. The 
terms are the nearest and fittest supplied by human 
language to denote divine relations. 1 In so apply- 
ing them, we must exclude from them everything 
inconsistent with the idea of God. The term "eter- 
nal" is added for the express purpose of negativing 
the idea of temporal posteriority. What else can be 
done? What term could be substituted for "Son," 
against which the same objection would not lie? 
What other names are there for the eternal Persons 
of the Trinity? An eternal Father implies an eter- 
nal Son, and eternal Son implies eternal generation. 
The phrase is also intended to exclude the idea of 
creation. Generation from God, not creation by 
God. What the Son is, he is by necessity of nature, 
not by the will of another, as the creature is. The 
very term "Son" at once asserts identity of nature, 
and implies some sort of dependence. "Whatsoev- 
er Christ hath common unto him, the same of neces- 
sity must be given him, but naturally and eternally 
given" : Hooker. 2 
Xo doubt the relation of Son implies also the idea 

1 Dean Jackson, Works, Bk. vii. ch. xxv. 8; Hooker, v. 54. 2; 
Pope, Comp. i. 273; see also Trenry, Doctr. of Eternal Sonship, 
pp. 9, 37, 47, 219, 247, 338, etc. 2 Passages in which the Father 
is called God in an eminent sense, John i. 1, iii. 16, 17, 18, xiv. 1 ; 
Eom. viii. 3; Heb. i. 1-3; 2 Cor. xiii. 13, etc. See also 1 Cor. 
iii. 23, xi. 3; John xx. 17; Rev. iii. 12; John xvii. 3; 1 Cor. viii 
6, xv. 28. 



THE TRINITY. 119 

of subordination. There is no difficulty in regard to 
official subordination, which necessarily attaches to 
the work of Mediator, and which no one denies. Nor 
is there any difficulty in accepting a subordination 
of order in the case both of the Son and Spirit. The 
difficulty is how to answer the question, Does the 
subordination apply to the divine nature of the Son 
and Spirit? The point is one of the utmost delicacy. 
History shows that where subordinationism in this 
sense is accepted, Arianism is not far off. How can 
such subordination be reconciled with Deity in the 
supreme sense? How can it be applied to such at- 
tributes as eternity? Yet some ancient writers, 
whom Pearson follows, have not hesitated to hold 
that perfect identity of nature is quite consistent 
with subordination in respect of the mode in which 
the nature is possessed. Pearson says: "That priv- 
ilege or priority consisteth not in this, that the es- 
sence or attributes of the one are greater than the 
essence or attributes of the other; but only in this, 
that the Father hath that essence of himself, the 
Son by communication from the Father." "Because 
he is from the Father, therefore he is called by those 
of the Xicene Council in their creed, God of God, 
light of light, very God of very God. 1 The Father is 
God, but not of God, light, but not of light ; Christ is 
God, but of God; light, but of light. There is no 
difference or inequality in the nature or essence, be- 
cause the same in both; but the Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ hath that essence of himself, from none; 
Christ hath that essence not of himself, but from 

1 6sbv en deov, Qog etc (poTog, Oebv a/.7j6tvov etc deov a7,rj6tvov t 



120 DOCTKINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

him." In other words, the Soil has the same es- 
sence as the Father, but has it by eternal communi- 
cation from the Father, and this communication is 
eternal generation. The words, The Father is great- 
er than I (John xiy. 28), were applied in support of 
this view. The Westminster Confession (ii. 3) puts 
these distinctions well: "The Father is of none, nei- 
ther begotten nor proceeding, the Son is eternally 
begotten of the Father, the Holy Ghost proceedeth 
from the Father and the Son." "The Holy Church 
throughout all the world" acknowledges its Head 
to be "the everlasting Son of the Father." 1 

I 104. The Procession of the Spirit. 

The idea of Procession is taken from John xv. 26. 
If the term "proceedeth" referred to the temporal 
mission of the Spirit, not to an eternal process, it 
would repeat what is said in the previous clause. 
The present tense is also noteworthy. 

The twofold Procession, namely, from the Father 
and the Son, is purely a theological inference from 
Scripture. In Scripture the Spirit is called "the 
Spirit of the Father," and said to proceed from the 
Father. He is also called the Spirit of Christ and 
of the Son, though he is not said to proceed from the 
Son. But it is argued that the two things must go 
together in one case as in the other. If the pro- 
cession from the Father is the ground of his being 
called the Spirit of the Father, a like reason must 
exist in the other case. The Son also sends the 
Spirit as the Father does. "'And from the Son" 
(filioque) formed no part of the Nicene Creed as for- 

1 Cunningham, Historical Theology, i. ch. ix. 



THE TRINITY. 121 

mulated by the first four Great Councils. It was 
first added at the Synod of Toledo, 589, and was con- 
firmed by subsequent Councils which are acknowl- 
edged by the Latin Church. The addition, as stated 
before, was one of the occasions of the separation 
between the Eastern and Western Churches. 1 

I 105. The Divinity of the Spirit. 

The divinity of the Spirit never gave rise to seri- 
ous controversy, because it was virtually decided 
in the rejection of Arianism. An Arian necessarily 
regarded the Spirit as a creature. The sect of the 
Macedonians 2 (named after Macedonius, bishop of 
Constantinople) contested the divinity of the Holy 
Spirit for a time, but they were condemned at 
the General Council of Constantinople, 381. The 
clauses of the Nicene Creed, referring to the Spirit, 
were probably added at that Council: "The Lord 
and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, 

lu Seeing therefore the Father is of none, the Son is of the 
Father, and the Spirit is of both, they are by these, their sev- 
eral properties, really distinguishable from each other. For 
the substance of God with this property to be of none doth make 
the Person of the Father; the very selfsame substance in num- 
ber with this property to be of the Father maketh the Person of 
the Son; the same substance having added unto it the property 
of 'proceeding from the other two maketh the Person of the Holy 
Ghost. So that in every person there is implied both the sub- 
stance of God which is one, and also that property which caus- 
eth the same person really and truly to differ from the other 
two": Hooker, Bk. v. 51. 1. See also Shedd, History of Chris- 
tian Doctrine, i. 329 ; Trenry's treatise, The Eternal Sonship of 
Christ ; Blunt, Diet. Theol. " Filioque." 2 They were Arians or 
Semi-Arians; Blunt, Diet, of Sects, p. 433; Shedd, History of 
Christian Doctrine, i. 358. 



122 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

who with the Father and the Son together is wor- 
shiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets." 

The faith of the Church on this subject is well ex- 
pressed by Dr. Pope: "The One divine Essence ex- 
ists in a Trinity of coequal, personal Subsistences: 
related as the Father, the eternal Son of the Father, 
and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the 
Father and the Son." 1 

Besides forming the basis of divine worship, the 
doctrine gives us a glimpse into the inner life of De- 
ity. That inner life is a scene of reciprocal activity 
and affection. It contains the eternal archetypes 
of the noblest human relations. Personality, fa- 
therhood, sonship in creatures, are faint copies of 
the ideal realities in God. See Ephesians iii. 14. IS : 
"The Father, from whom every fatherhood in heav- 
en and on earth is named." 2 

1 106. The Technical Terms. 

The technical terms employed are owria, substan- 
tia, essentia, natura, for the one common essence; 
£7roVrao-t5, 7rp 00-0)7707/, substantia, persona, hypostasis, 
person, personal subsistence, for the separate per- 
sons; ISlott]*; for the distinctive characteristic of 
each person, namely, self -existence, generation, pro- 
cession. Perichoresis is the intercommunion of na- 

1 Coinp. i. 259. 2 " We speak of these things in a poor, low, 
broken manner — we teach them as they are revealed in the 
Scripture — we labor by faith to adhere unto them as revealed : 
but when we come into a steady, direct view and consideration 
of the thing itself, our minds fail, our hearts tremble, and we can 
find no rest but in a holy admiration of what we cannot com- 
prehend": Owen, i. 330; Donne, Works, ii. 228; South, Serm. 
xliii., on the Trinity. 



THE TRINITY. 123 

ture and attributes. In the second set of terms a 
change of usage took place. Before the Mcene 
Council, hypostasis, substantia, was frequently used 
of the essence. We read at that time of one hypos- 
tasis, where afterwards we read of three, the term 
being appropriated to person. 

See the exhaustive and able treatment of the doc- 
trine in Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, i. 
344-465. 1 

I 1 In 1718 the Greek patriarch and synod of Constantinople 
repudiated finally the Filioque, and thus set forth the doctrine 
of the Greek Church : We believe that there is a twofold pro- 
cession of the Holy Spirit — the one natural, eternal, and before 
time, according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Fa- 
ther alone; and of which it is both written in the creed and the 
Lord has said, " The Comforter whom I will send unto you from 
the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceed eth from 
the Father." (John xv. 26.) The other procession is temporal 
and deputative, according to which the Holy Spirit is externally 
sent forth, derived, proceeds, and flows from both the Father 
and the Son for the sanctification of the creature. As to his 
temporal and outward procession, we agree that he proceeds, 
comes, or is sent, by the Son, or through the Son's mediation, and 
from the Son, in the sense of an outward procession, for the sanc- 
tification of the creature. But this irpdeaiq, or mission, we do 
not call procession, lest w r e should be as unhappy as the papists, 
who, because of the limited dialect of the Latin language, which 
is unable to express the irpoeaig, or mission, by one word, and 
EKTropevoig, or procession, by another, have called them both pro- 
cessions, which afterwards grew into error, and made them take 
the eternal procession for that trpdeatg which was in time, — J. J. T.] 



CHAPTER VI. 
CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. 

$107. Idea of Creation— $ 108. Origen's Position— $109. Protest 
Against Manich^eism and Materialism— $110. Two Views— $111. 
Bearings of the Doctrine— $ 112. Pre'existence, Traducianism, 

AND CREATIONISM— $113. NEGATIVES DEISM AND PANTHEISM— $ 114. 

Continuous Creation— $ 115. Concursus. 

I. CREATION. 

\ 107. Idea of Creation. 

Creation may mean either the act of creation or the 
created universe. Creation in the first sense is ei- 
ther primary 1 or secondary, the creation of matter 
itself, or giving shape to matter already existing. 
It is only of the first that we need to speak here. 

The specifically Christian definition of creation 
is the creation of matter out of nothing. The idea 
was unknown, or rather rejected, in heathen an- 
tiquity, where the maxim ex nihilo nihil fit was held 
to limit even divine action. This maxim, founded 
on man's inability to originate new matter and on 
the observation of nature, where there is no abso- 
lute beginning, is true enough in reference to man. 
But its application to Deity is another proof that 
"the world by wisdom knew not God." Creation in 
the highest sense is the characteristic of omnipo- 
tence in distinction from finite power; otherwise the 
difference is merely one of degree. The idea neither 

1 Synonyms of primary are essential, absolute, immediate. 
(124) 



CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. 125 

involves a self-contradiction nor violates the causal 
principle, for an adequate cause is assigned. At the 
same time it maintains the supremacy of spirit over 
matter in the fullest degree. The alternative is the 
eternal existence of matter, which was held uni- 
versally in the heathen world. On that view spirit 
and matter are coordinate, and the divine independ- 
ence is abrogated. 

Although primary creation is not expressly as- 
serted in Scripture, it is implied. "The heaven and 
the earth" (Genesis i. 1) is the Hebrew equivalent 
for "universe," in which the substance of matter is 
included. The same may be said of "all things," 
John i. 3. "Things which are seen were not made 
of things which do appear" (Hebrews xi. 3). The 
Hebrew and Greek words for create do not indeed 
originally imply absolute creation, but they acquire 
this meaning from the context. However, the He- 
brew N*"Q is used with peculiar dignity of divine ac- 
tion only. 

I 108. Origen's Position. 

'Origen, who is always original and often eccen : 
trie, held the notion of eternal creation. According 
to him, matter is eternal, but eternally dependent 
on the divine will. Its existence is not absolute and 
underived. An argument used in support of this 
notion is, that as creation is an effect of the divine 
goodness, and this goodness is eternal, there can 
never have been a time when creation was not. 
But it does not follow from the eternity of the divine 
goodness that it was eternally active. This would 
be to make not merely its existence but its operation 
necessary. The argument also implies that God has 



126 DOCTEINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

done all he can do, in which case the universe is as 
infinite as God. Besides, the very idea of goodness 
requires that it be free in its exercise. 

1 109. Protest Against Manichseism and Materialism. 

The doctrine was put at the head of the Apostles' 
and Nicene Creeds ("Maker of heaven and earth") 
as a protest against the Manichgean principle of the 
necessary evil of matter and the pantheistic view of 
nature as an emanation from God. It is still neces- 
sary as a protest against current Materialism. Even 
if the theory of evolution were established, it would 
leave the necessity for creation as strong as ever. 
The only change it would make would be to put the 
act of creation farther back, and to alter our views 
of the mode followed. Everything which develop- 
ment has brought out must once have existed in a 
potential state, just as the tree and fruit exist in the 
seed. Certainly creation is not made less essential 
or less wonderful on this scheme. 1 

II. THE DIVINE IMAGE IN MAN. 
§110. Two Views. 

That man was made in the divine image is the 
uniform teaching of Scripture, Genesis i. 26, 27; 
Psalm viii. 5; 1 Corinthians xi. 7. But the constit- 
uents of this image have been variously conceived. 
The choice lies between two views. The image con- 
sists either, (1) in the powers of man's rational and 
moral nature, and the conformity of those powers 
to the divine will; or (2) assuming the first as con- 

1 Pope, Comp. i. 361; Pearson, Art. i.; Dorner, System of 
Christian Doctrine, ii. 21 ; Barrow on Apostles' Creed, Serm. xii. 



CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. 127 

stitutive of man, in the second alone. The first is 
the more usual view. It was the view of the school- 
men, who made God's image in man consist of man's 
natural attributes and their moral conformity to 
God's will. Augustine, like many others, distin- 
guished between "image" and "likeness," making 
the first consist in cognitio veritatis, the second in 
amor virtutis. Roman Catholic divines generally 
make man's nature correspond to the "image," and 
original righteousness to the "likeness;" but they 
regard the second element as a supernatural addi- 
tion, not a part of man's original nature. If the first 
view be adopted, then it is only the second part of 
the image that was lost or could be lost by sin. For 
man to have lost the first would have been to cease 
to be man, and so to cease to be responsible and capa- 
ble of recovery. In favor of the second view is the 
consideration that it makes the original image co- 
incide with what is restored in redemption. Re- 
demption does not give back any substantive fac- 
ulty of human nature, which had never been lost, 
but only restores every faculty to its normal state. 
See Ephesians iv. 24; Colossians iii. 10. 1 Right- 
eousness, which is the gift of redemption, is not a 
faculty like reason or conscience, but a quality; it 
is the normal exercise of moral powers. Is it not 
then better to regard this as forming the divine im- 
age? Man's rational and moral nature is implied 
as constituting the capacity for righteousness. As 
matter of fact, all the pow T ers of man's nature exist 
in full action in the wicked; it is their right action 
that is wanting. 

1 Laidlaw, Bible Doctrine of Man, pp. 105, 109, etc. 



128 DOCTBINES PBESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

What man's original perfection included is not 
stated in Scripture, and can only be matter of spec- 
ulation. There is no need to put that perfection 
extravagantly high. Error and evil were of course 
excluded. Adam was made subject to the law of 
growth, though the growth might and ought to have 
been in knowledge and goodness only. 1 

\ 111. Bearings of the Doctrine. 
The doctrine of the Divine Image has important 
bearings on the questions of Redemption, Incarna- 
tion, and Immortality. It made the first two possi- 
ble. It is only a rational and moral being who is 
capable of redemption. The same powers which 
constitute the capacity of Redemption constitute the 
capacity of Incarnation. Animal incarnations are 
the grotesque caricatures of heathenism. It seems 
most reasonable to reckon Immortality among the 
fundamental elements of human nature. It seems 
inseparable from the powers of reason and divine 
knowledge. Like these powers, it is not lost in the 
Fall, its character is changed. 

\ 112. Preexistence, Traducianism, and Creationism. 

Respecting the way in which the soul or spiritual 
nature of man is transmitted, three theories have 
been advanced. Origen was alone in holding the 
Preexistence of individual souls, a Christianized 
transmigration. The notion has much against it, 
and little in its favor. Memory supplies no trace 
of a former state. The sense of unity in the race and 
the likeness between individuals are unexplained. 
The truth lies between Traducianism and Creation- 

1 Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, ii. 77. 



CREATION* AND PROVIDENCE. 129 

isru. According to the first, the soul is transmitted 
like the body; according to the second, it is directly 
created by God. Both theories have always had 
advocates in the Church, and for both something 
can be said. The former best explains the fact of 
hereditary qualities and the transmission of sin. 
On the other hand, it is alleged that the theory has a 
materialistic taint, implying that spirit is trans- 
mitted by division like matter. But this need not be 
implied; division may not be the only mode of trans- 
mission; the laws of spirit must differ from those 
of matter. It is also objected that on this the- 
ory our Lord's soul could not be sinless; but the 
circumstances of his human nature are altogether 
unique. As there was miracle in respect of the con- 
ception, so there may have been in other respects. 
In early days Tertullian favored Traducianism. 
Creationism has found the greatest amount of favor. 
The Greek Church, Jerome, the mediaeval divines, 
Calvin, accept it. Augustine being doubtful. The 
theory seems to maintain most firmly the independ- 
ence and high prerogatives of spirit, Hebrews xii. 
9. On the other hand, it fails to explain the intel- 
lectual and moral likeness between individuals, and 
it fails to explain original sin. These are qualities 
of the spiritual nature, and to find their source in 
the flesh is unphilosophical and Manich^ean. The 
whole question is speculative rather than practical. 1 
Beck, Biblical Psychology; Laidlaw, Bible Doc- 
trine of Man: Delitzsch. Biblical Psychology. 

1 Blunt. Diet. Theol. " Creationism," " Traducianism," "Pre- 
existence." 
9 



130 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IX REDEMPTION. 

III. PROVIDENCE. 

\ 113, Negatives Deism and Pantheism. 

This subject is fruitful in practical edification. 
We only notice here one or two points. Providence 
is generally described as General and Special, and 
made to include Preservation and Government. 1 It 
negatives both the deistic and pantheistic views of 
God's present and constant relation to the world. 
According to the former, the relation is one of pure 
Transcendence, i. e., God is not merely distinct from, 
but altogether unconcerned in. the world's life; ac- 
cording to the second, it is one of pure Immanence. 
i. e.. it has no existence apart from that life. Stand- 
ing between these two extremes, holding the truth 
and rejecting the error involved in them, the doc- 
trine of Providence asserts against one a true di- 
vine immanence, and against the other a true divine 
transcendence. God is at once intimately present 
and active i» every point of creation, and. at the 
same time, distinct from and above the world's life. 
The divine life and the human life are not separated 
by an impassable gulf, as deism says, nor do they 
run into each other, as pantheists say. 

£114. Continuous Creation. 
The mode of God's action in Providence has been 
much discussed. To describe it as Continuous C 

1 Cicero. De Nat. Deor. ii. 22: "-poima, providentia, in his 
raaxirae est occupata, primum ut ruundus quani aptissimus sit 
ad pennanenduro. deinde ut nulla re egeat, maxime autem ut 
in eo exiraia pulchritudo sit atque omnis ornatus." He is ar- 
guing against the Epicurean deists, who said, "Deos nihil curare 
huroana. Nihil Deus agit. nullis cogitationibus implicatur. nulla 
opera niolitur." Luthardt, Conip. d. Dogmatikj p. 120. 



CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. 131 

Hon is to go too far, and to merge Providence in cre- 
ation. The world would then have no continuous 
existence. So far as the phrase asserts the con- 
stant dependence of the creature on the Creator 
(Acts xvii. 28), it is useful. 

§ 115. Ooncursus. 
The theory of Concursus, in some form or other, 
must be admitted. God works through second 
causes, through the established order of things; 
and in saying this, we say that these have no neces- 
sary or absolute existence. Their independence, 
while real, is derived and limited. Man himself be- 
longs to the order of second causes, though in the 
highest rank. God's ever-present action is univer- 
sal in the strictest sense. Even the power by which 
men do evil is from God, the power being from God, 
and the moral quality from the abuse of man's will. 
Quenstedt uses as an illustration the act of writing, 
which depends, not partly on the hand and partly on 
the pen, but equally and entirely on both. 1 Con- 
fronted with the difficulty of moral evil, he makes 
the distinction between the act and its quality just 
mentioned. 2 The phrase concurrence also implies 
that God respects the nature of the beings he has 
created. "Concurrit Deus cum causis secundis jux- 
ta ipsarum naturam, cum liberis libere, cum neces- 
sariis necessario, cum debiliter. cum fortibus for- 
titer, pro sua suavissima dispositione universali op- 
erando." 

1 Pope, Compend. i. 447; Luthardt, p. 122. 2 Coinfluit Deus 
in actus peccaminosos quoad entitatem et speciem naturae, non 
quoad deformitatem et speciem moris. 



132 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

God's acts of government are sometimes described 
as Permission, Restraint, Direction, Final Determi- 
nation. Deus quidem pennittit, sed non vult to per- 
missum. 

Dorner's discussion of Creation, etc., will well re- 
pay study, System of Christian Doctrine, ii. 9-103. 



CHAPTER VII. 

ACTUAL AND ORIGINAL SIN. 

$116. Historical Origin of Sin— §117. Definition of Sin— $118. Guilt 
and Corruption— $ 119. Penalty of Death— § 120. Theories of Or- 
igin Tested— § 121. Universality of Guilt— $122. Universality 
of Depravity— $ 123. Peccatuae Originis or Originale— $ 124. Ro- 
mans v. 12-19—$ 125. Original Depravity— $ 126. Undeniable Facts 
—$127. Race Solidarity— §128. Armini anism— $ 129. Substance of 
the Dogma Common— $130. Against Pel agianism— $ 181. Augustin- 
ianism— $132. Semi -Pel agianism— $133. Calvinistic and Lutheran 
Churches— $ 134. Arminian Methodism— $ 135. Confessional Dif- 
ferences— $ 136. Literature. 

I 116. Historical Origin of Sin. 
Scripture says nothing on the question, which has 
never ceased to awaken and baffle curiosity, of the 
real or metaphysical origin of moral evil. So far 
as Scripture is concerned, any theory is admissible, 
which does justice to all the facts of the case. It 
refers only to the historical origin of sin in the 
world. According to Genesis, sin was imported into 
the world from without. It arose at first, as it 
arises still, through temptation. Beyond this point 
Scripture does not go. Only the bare facts of the 
first sin are recited; the significance of that sin for 
the race is gradually revealed afterwards. 

\ 117. Definition of Sin. 
A good definition of sin is found in St. John's word 
avowed (1 John iii. 4), lawlessness, deviation from 
or contrariety to law. Other terms, such as apapria, 
iniquity, transgression, unrighteousness, include the 
same idea of deviation, which again presupposes a 
fixed rule or law. 1 This rule or law exists first. 
1 Luthardt, Comp. d. Dogmatik, p. 150. 

(133) 



131 DOCTBQf££ PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

Right comes before wrong. One is thai which ought 
to be, which has a right to exist] the other, that 

which ought not to be, which has no right to exist. 
Some, who explain good and evil as two sides of a 
necessary antithesis, argue as if wrong were neces- 
sary to the existence of right. Certainly the idea 
or notion of wrong is given in the idea of right, but 
not the fact or reality of wrong. The two things are 
not coordinate, as this theory supposes. The rule 
in the present case is God's law in all its breadth. 
The very giving of that law to man implies that he 
is a free moral being, capable of keeping or viola- 
ting it. A brute is incapable of sin. God's law com- 
mands as well as forbids, commands love to God 
and our neighbor as well as forbids hate. The ab- 
sence of such love, indifference, is sin as well as 
active wrong. "Sin is disobedience to the law of 
God in will or deed." It is to be remembered also 
that all sin, as sin, is against God. Strictly speak- 
ing, we do not sin against men. Dr. Pope's defini- 
tion of sin, 1 "the voluntary separation of the soul or 
the self from God," is taken from the contents of 
God's law. That law requires man to acknowledge 
God's right in him. and surrender himself to God's 
service. Sin is the rejection of this demand. 

: 118. Guilt and Corruption. 

Sin. both actual and original, assumes two forms 
or is known by two signs, guilt and corruption. 
Guilt, again, is distinguished as liability for the 
act and liability to penalty, reatus m 

1 This definition applies to actual sin only. Ir. reference to 

original sin, it applies to its beginning in Adam. 



ACTUAL AND ORIGINAL SIN. 135 

pcence. Both these forms of guilt meet in actual sin ; 

the second only is found in original sin. Actual sin 

includes sins of desire and intention as well as of 

word and deed. Corruption or depravity denotes 

the evil state of man's nature which is the secret 

fount of actual sin, and is perhaps best described as 

sinfulness. 

1 119. Penalty of Death. 

The penalty which certainly follows guilt is death, 
both physical and spiritual. Romans v. 12 can 
scarcely leave it doubtful that in man's case the 
former is the effect of sin. He was designed orig- 
inally for physical immortality. As physical death 
is the separation of soul from body, so spiritual 
death is the separation of the soul from God. This 
separation is the opposite of the state of divine fel- 
lowship for which man was made, and which con- 
stitutes eternal life. The perpetuation of this state 
of separation is eternal death. 

§ 120. Theories of Origin Tested. 

The two axioms by which all theories must be 
tried are God's holiness and man's freedom. Tried 
by these tests, all the theories hitherto proposed 
fail. Dualism derives moral evil from the nature of 
matter. Spirit is pure, matter impure, sin is the 
result of contact between the two. This was the 
doctrine of Manichgeism and Gnosticism, and Mani- 
chseism was an offshoot of the old dualistic religion 
of Persia. If matter is regarded as created by God, 
God is made the author of sin; if it is held to be 
eternal, God is not supreme. In either case sin is 
necessary. According to another theory, sin is the 



136 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

consequence of a finite nature. 1 The finite as such 
is evil. Sin springs from limitation of knowledge 
and power. On this view also sin is necessary. 
The finite as such cannot be good, and can only be- 
come so by passing into the infinite. The panthe- 
istic tendency is evident. Moreover, good and evil 
are made quantities instead of qualities. F. C. Baur 
and others of pantheistic tendencies favor this the- 
ory. A kindred, though not identical, view makes 
sin a mere negation, the simple absence of good. 
Augustine seems to have been the author of this 
favorite idea. He thought that, if sin was a mere 
nonentity, the necessity for seeking a cause for it 
was done away. But sin is more than a negation, 
more than the mere absence of what ought to be; 
it is just as positive as good, it is the presence of 
what ought not to be. The will is not passive but 
antagonistic in evil. A third theory, which traces 
sin to the possession of a sensuous nature, has a 
Manichaean taint. 2 Besides being open to the ob- 
jections already mentioned, it leaves spiritual sins 
unexplained. The seat of all sin is in the will, of 
which the flesh is the instrument. 3 

All that we can say in the way of theory is that 
the very idea of freedom implies the possibility (not 
the fact) of evil. The conversion of possibility into 
fact is man's work. The sole question of interest 
is whether a world constructed on the basis of free- 
dom, or one constructed on the basis of necessity, 

Corner, System of Christian Doctrine, ii. 362. 2 lbid. ii. 
375-382. 3 Pope, Conip. ii. 20; Dorner, System of Christian 
Doctrine, iii. 18; Muller, Christ. Doctr. of Sin, vol. i. 271-412, 
and the whole treatise. 



ACTUAL A>;D 0B1GINAL SIX. 137 

is best. In the latter case, not only is evil excluded, 
but good also. Virtue is then as necessary as the 
action of physical law. It is not man's own act or 
choice. He has nothing to say to his own moral 
character. The guilt and misery of sin are no doubt 
excluded, but so also are the merit and the true 
happiness of virtue. It is open to argument wheth- 
er this would not be a greater evil than the permis- 
sion of sin. Besides, while sin is permitted by God, 
it is eventually overruled for good, perhaps even for 
greater good. 

I. ACTUAL SIN. 

\ 121. Universality of Guilt. 
The universality of guilt with all its consequences 
is taught in passages like Genesis vi. 12; Psalm xiv. 
1-3; cf. Eomans iii. 10; Isaiah liii. 6; Galatians iii. 22. 
The universal commands to repent and believe in or- 
der to forgiveness imply the same truth. The first 
chapters of the Epistle to the Romans expressly 
assert and argue the sin and guilt of all mankind. 
This fact constitutes the necessity for the work of 
redemption, which the apostle goes on to expound. 

\ 122. Universality of Depravity. 
The universal extent of inward depravity may be 
inferred from the universality of outward sin. So 
general a fact can only be explained by as general a 
cause. An invariable effect requires an invariable 
cause; and the effect is invariable. However dif- 
ferent in form and degree, sin is universal. The uni- 
versal necessity of conversion, as taught in Scrip- 
ture, is another proof. See Genesis vi. 5, viii. 21; 
Psalm li. ; Matthew vii. 11, xv. 19: John iii. 3: Ephe- 
sians ii. 3, iv. 22. Another testimony to the same 



138 DOCTRINES PKESUPPOSEB IN REDEMPTION. 

truth is found in St. Paul's antithesis of Flesh and 
Spirit. The germ of this idea is contained in Christ's 
words, John iii. 6. Here "the flesh" must mean the 
whole of human nature, 1 including flesh, soul, and 
spirit in its sinful state. The whole nature is des- 
ignated from the part which governs the rest. The 
idea is fully worked out in St. Paul's Epistles, Ro- 
mans vii. 19-25, viii. 6, 7, 8, 18; Galatians v. 19, 22. 
"The spirit"' may be interpreted either as the whole 
nature, so designated from the part which has be- 
come the governing power, or as the Holy Spirit 
who creates the new spiritual life. "The flesh*' is 
an awfully vivid description of man as morally cor- 
rupt. 

II. DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL OR HEREDITARY SIX. 
1 123. Peccatum Originis or Originate. 

This is "the fault and corruption of the nature of 
every man," Eng. Art. ix. [cf. Meth. Art. vii.]. It 
consists of the same two elements, guilt and deprav- 
ity, which, however, undergo a modification. Guilt 
here means simply the reatus pcenw, the rectus culpiu 
being cut off. Depravity means a tendency or bias 
to evil. The reatus culpce in the case of original sin 
resided in the first sinner, as representing the race. 
We inherit the consequences of his act. The two 
ideas of responsibility for the act. and liability to 
consequences, are separable under a federal constitu- 
tion such as that on which man was created. An im- 
portant question is. Which is first, guilt or depravity? 

x See also John i. 14. Note by Dr. GifTord in Speakers 
Comm. Introduction^ p. 48: Godet, Coram, on Romans, i. 127; 
Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, ii. 318. 



ACTUAL AND ORIGINAL SIN. 139 

An attempt has been made to represent depravity as 
transmitted in the way of natural consequence, and 
the guilt to follow from this. This was the theory 
of the French Reformed School of Saumur (seven- 
teenth century), known as the mediate theory. But 
it only raises another difficulty. How, on this the- 
ory, is the transmission of moral evil to be justified? 
There is no justification. Moral evil is transmitted 
just like physical. 1 On the other hand, the trans- 
mission of guilt, in the restricted sense already ex- 
plained, is perfectly justifiable, if the representative 
or federal principle is justifiable in the moral as in 
other spheres. And then the transmission of guilt 
becomes the basis for the transmission of a corrupt 

nature. 

\ 124. Romans v. 12-19. 

The classical passage on Original Quilt is Romans 
v. 12-19. All through the passage a parallel or con- 
trast is struck between the two men who are treated 
as the two Heads or Representatives of the race. 
The apostle's thought is centered on the benefits, 
coming to the race through the one man, Christ — 
coming independently of our action. He sets off 
these benefits by contrasting them with the evil 
coming to the race through one man, Adam — com- 
ing independently of our action. Unless this is the 
apostle's meaning, his parallel has no force. And 
the details of the passage bear out the central 
thought so understood. The unfinished protasis of 
verse 12 would run, "As through one man sin en- 
tered into the world, and death through sin, and so 
death j>assed unto all men, for that all sinned; so 

Corner, Syst. Christian Doctr. ii. 350; Pope, Comp. ii. 78; 
Hodge, Syst. Theol. ii. 205. 



140 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

through one man righteousness entered into the 
world, and life through righteousness, and so life 
passed unto all men, for that all became righteous, 
or were justified." If this is not expressly said, it 
is implied through the rest of the passage ; see verse 
14, "who is a figure of him that was to come." Ac- 
cording to verse 12, "death entered and passed unto 
all men," i. e., virtually, when the one man sinned. 
The "passing of death unto all men" is then justi- 
fied by the statement "for that all sinned." When? 
When all virtually died, i. e., in Adam. The con- 
verse also is implied, namely, that all were justified 
in Christ, i. e., conditionally, provisionally, so far as 
God's purpose is concerned. If the reference were 
to the sin and death of individuals apart from Adam, 
we should expect "for that all have sinned," as well 
as "death has passed unto all men." Augustine, in 
saying "ail sinned in Adam," was technically wrong, 
but substantially right. To suppose the apostle to 
mean that individuals die because of their personal 
sin would contradict the main teaching of the para- 
graph. Besides, how could the death of infants be 
explained? No doubt, at first sight St. Paul's teach- 
ing might seem to lead to Universalism. But he is 
here dealing with the objective aspect of salvation, 
its general provision by God, under which aspect it 
is universal. It is on the subjective side that con- 
ditions come in, and these are dealt with elsewhere. 
Pee also verse 19, "were made," or constituted "sin- 
ners," 2 Corinthians v. 14 ; 1 Corinthians xv. 22, 45. 1 

1 Dorner, Syst. Christian Doctr. ii. 339. "Jacet ab Oriente ad 
Occidentem usque ingens segrotus. De coelo venit Dominus, ut 
sanaret aegrotum " : Augustine. 



ACTUAL AND ORIGINAL SIN. 141 

| 125, Original Depravity. 

Original Depravity is taught in passages like 
Psalm li. 5; John iii. 6; Ephesians ii. 3; see also 
Genesis v. 1-3; Job xiv. 4. "Flesh," as we have seen 
(p. 138), is the designation of a certain moral state, 
namely, of human nature as fallen or corrupt. 
"That which is flesh" (John iii. 6), thus, is equivalent 
to "corrupt nature." And the reason assigned is 
that it is "born of the flesh;" like begets like. In 
the same way "spirit," i. e., renewed human nature, 
is so because "born of the Spirit." "We were by 
nature children of wrath, even as the rest," Ephe- 
sians ii. 3. "By nature," the apostle says, we were 
exposed to the divine w T rath. Attempts have been 
made to explain "children of wrath" by "children 
of disobedience," Ephesians v. 6, the possessive be- 
ing subjective instead of objective. But what au- 
thority is there for supposing "wrath" to be a spe- 
cial characteristic of Paul and the Ephesian Chris- 
tians, and indeed all Christians, "even as the rest"? 
"Wrath" is constantly used by St. Paul, without 
qualification, for the divine anger; see Romans ii. 
5, 8, v. 9, ix. 22, xii. 19; 1 Thessalonians i. 10, ii. 16, 
v. 9; also Matthew iii. 7; John iii. 36; Romans i. 18, 

etc. 

$126. Undeniable Facts. 

It must be remembered that the Scripture doctrine 
of Original Sin is simply a way of explaining cer- 
tain undeniable facts of human history, the facts of 
sin and death. Apart from it, the power and uni- 
versality of sin are without explanation, and death 
is without moral justification. That death is not a 
normal, natural event in the case of man is shown 



142 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

by our instinctive, inevitable shrinking from it. 
Deny Original Sin, and actual sin remains, with its 
mystery deepened. We knew little of the mystery 
of evil now; we should know still less, indeed noth- 
ing at all, in the other case. 

§127. Race Solidarity, 

The doctrine is also in harmony with the princi- 
ple of the solidarity of the race. Man is not an 
isolated unit in his physical, intellectual, or social 
life. He comes into the world with a certain en- 
dowment, which he can improve, but to which he 
cannot add. One man is born a prince, another a 
beggar; one a poet, another an artist; one clever, 
another dull; one inherits abilities, position, con- 
nections, intellectual, moral, and social qualities 
which render success certain and easy; another "by 
nature" is heavily, even hopelessly, weighted in all 
these respects. All these things we owe to the race, 
not to ourselves. We do not make them, and cannot 
alter them. Not individualism but organic unity is 
the principle on which man's life is constituted. 
The human world, like the material one, is not a 
mass of unconnected atoms, but a system, a cosmos, 
whose parts act and react at every point. This doc- 
trine says that the same law holds good in man's 
spiritual life. Redemption is founded on the same 
principle. Pelagianism, in denying the possibility 
of a Fall in Adam, denies the possibility of Redemp- 
tion in Christ. 

$128. Arminianism. 

Arminianism calls attention to the fact that Re- 
demption was coeval with the Fall. Man was never 
left under the unchecked dominion of sin and death. 



ACTUAL AND ORIGINAL SIN. 143 

Mr. Wesley says: "Allowing that all the souls of 
men are dead by nature, this excuses none, seeing 
there is no man that is in a state of mere nature; 
there is no man, unless he has quenched the Spirit, 
that is wholly void of the grace of God." 1 Thus, 
no one is abandoned to the power of evil. Even in 
the wicked the spirit strives against the flesh, and 
checks its power. When it ceases to resist, spiritual 
death is complete. Extreme doctrines of original 
sin, such as Augustine's, assume that man actually 
is what he would have been if he had been left en- 
tirely to the power of sin, apart from all modifying, 
restraining action of divine grace. 2 

Redemption cuts off the entail of original guilt, 
at least provisionally, and provides a remedy for 
original corruption. In the case of infants dying 
before sinfulness issues in actual sin, the remedy 
takes effect of itself; in the case of adults, it needs 
an act of individual appropriation. No one dies 
eternally through original sin alone. 

III. DOGMA OF ORIGINAL SIN. 
§ 129. Substance of the Dogma Common. 
While the substance of the dogma is common to 
all Churches, its formal statement varies. The com- 
mon truth is the fall of the race in Adam and its re- 
demption in Christ. The two go together. If one 
is impossible, so is the other. In that case we are 
left to work out our own salvation in the most abso- 
lute sense. It is to the West that we owe the formal 
definition of this doctrine. The East has taken lit- 
tle or no interest in the question. 

1 Serm. "Working Out Our Own Salvation" 2 Corner, Syst, 
Christian Doctr. |i, 329-333 t 



144 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

g 130, Against Pelagianism. 
The occasion of the definition was the error of 
Pelagianism, which knows only individual sin. Ac- 
cording to it the individual is everything, the race 
nothing; every man comes into the world in the same 
moral state as Adam ? he falls through influence and 
example, he saves himself in the same way; death 
is a natural occurrence, not a penalty. 1 The teach- 
ing was condemned at Councils like Carthage, 412 
A.D., and Ephesus, 431. 2 

\ 131. Augustinianism. 
It was in opposition to this theory, which un- 
dermined the very foundations of redemption, that 
Augustine formulated a theory of Original Sin. In 
doing so, however, he only gave definite expression 
to the thoughts of preceding teachers like Cyprian, 
Ambrose, Tertullian, and Hilary. With immense 
wealth of argument from Scripture, reason, and ex- 
perience, he established the moral unity of the race, 
the federal headship of Adam, and the transmission 
of his sin to mankind. He undoubtedly pushed these 
ideas too far, at least in statement, saying, "In 
Adam all sinned, for we were all that one man." 3 
It is not always easy to separate the true ideas in 
Augustine's teaching from their extremes. Over- 
looking the fact that divine grace began to operate 
contemporaneously with the Fall, he made human 

!Shedd, Hist. Christian Doctr. ii. 93; Blunt, Diet of Sects, p. 
415 ; Diet. Theol. " Pelagianism." 2 Dorner, vol. ii. p. 338. Au- 
gustine translates Bom. v. 12, "In quo omnes peccaverunt; " 
omnes fuimus in illo uno, quando omnes fuimus ille unus : Ln- 
thardt, p. 146. The translation is verbally wrong, but substan- 
tially right, See his Anti-Pelagian Treatises, edited by Canon 
Bright (Ciar. Press), Shedd ? ii. 50, 



ACTUAL AND ORIGINAL SIN. 145 

nature really an unrelieved mass of 'corruption. On 
this supposition, man's only possible attitude to 
grace is a passive one — he has no power to accept or 
resist. As all men are equally impotent, while all 
are not saved, the cause of the difference cannot be 
in man, but must be in God. That cause can only 
be God's determination to save some and not others. 
Here we have the primary germ of predestinarian- 
ism. But, setting aside extreme statements and in- 
ferences, the substance of Augustine's teaching has 
passed into the creeds of all Churches. 

§ 132. Semi-Pelagianism. 

The extreme doctrine provoked reaction as early 
as the fifth century. The Semi-Pelagianism which 
arose then was an attempt at compromise. It 
dwelt on the negative aspect of sin, and made man 
capable of originating good which divine grace com- 
pletes. This was the doctrine of John Cassian, 
Faustus of Rhegium, etc., while Hilary, Prosper, 
Caesarius of Aries, took Augustine's line. The local 
synods of Arias and Lyons in 475 favored the new 
movement, which again was condemned by those 
of Orange and Valence, 529. 1 While Pelagianism 
has never been adopted by any Church, and never 
could be, Semi-Pelagianism infects many Churches. 
The Roman Catholic doctrine of original sin is not 
free from it. 

§ 133. Calvinistic and Lutheran Churches. 

The only Churches which accept Augustine's doc- 
trine in full are those which follow Calvin, who 
simply gave logical completeness to the teaching of 

1 Shedd, ii. 104; Dorner, Syst. Christian Doctr. ii. 342. 
10 



146 DOCTBINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

the greatest of the Fathers. Luther indeed fol- 
lowed Augustine as fully as Calvin, but the Lu- 
theran Church has not done so. 

1 134. Arminian Methodism. 

The best form of Arminian doctrine, as held by 
the Methodist Churches, teaches that, while in hu- 
man nature of itself "dwelleth no good thing," on 
the ground of Christ's redemption it shares uni- 
versally in prevenient grace. Such grace comes to 
man unconditionally, and is the power by which men 
consent to and accept further grace. Here the essen- 
tial truth of Augustine's doctrine is preserved, while 
the errors of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism are 
avoided. Any original goodness in man is denied, 
but he is not reduced to utter impotence. Every 
man loses in Adam and gains in Christ. The legal 
and moral headship of the Second Adam is as ef- 
fective as that of the first Adam; the former is more 
potent for good than the latter was for evil. 1 

In him the tribes of Adam boast 
More blessings than their father lost. 

The grace which comes to every man in Christ, if 
rightly used, will lead to salvation: "The natural 
man is without the power to cooperate with divine 
influence. The cooperation with grace is of grace." 
The good seen in unregenerate men is due to re- 
demption. 2 In affirming the action of grace as well 
as of sin from the time of the Fall, Arminianism 
avoids the prime error of Augustine. 

1 135. Confessional Differences. 
Some further remarks on confessional differences 
1 Rom. v. 15, 17, 20, 21. 2 See chap. x. infra. 



ACTUAL AND ORIGINAL SIN. 147 

may be useful. The Roman view of man's original 
nature and the effects of the Fall is as follows. 
Man's nature consists of flesh and spirit, each op- 
posed to the other, and each seeking supremacy. 
The original righteousness, which kept the flesh in 
due subjection to the spirit, was no part of this na- 
ture, but a superadded gift. Only this latter was 
lost by the Fall. Thus man was simply thrown back 
into his original state; he lost nothing belonging to 
his nature, but something supernatural. It is ob- 
vious to remark that on this view man's nature as 
created was morally neutral; it was not actually 
moral, but only capable of a moral character, the 
moral element residing in the supernatural addi- 
tion. 1 Indeed, a Manichsean taint seems present; 
for, without the bridle of the supernatural gift, the 
triumph of the flesh seemed assured. The Soman 
Church calls the natural contrariety of flesh and 
spirit concupiscence, which, while the material and 
source of sin, is not itself sinful; it is in fact a mere 
natural propensity. 2 The effect of the Fall is thus 
much more negative than positive. Yet the original 
nature is supposed to have suffered some weakening 
from the Fall, 3 and the fact of inherited sin is taught, 
which baptism washes away. 4 On the other hand, 
the Protestant confessions make original righteous- 
ness a constituent of man's nature, not something 
additional. In the Fall, therefore, the nature itself 
suffered loss. Not of course that any substantive 
part or faculty of it was lost. By its very idea right- 
eousness is not a substance or faculty, but a quality 

1 Jackson, Bk. x. chs. iii., xii., xiii. 2 "Winer, Conf. pp. 89, 99. 
s Bellarrnin says, "Homo nunc nascitur pronns ad malum, in- 
firmus, ignorans " : ibid. pp. 86, 88. 4 Winer, Conf. p. 103. 



148 DOCTEINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

or character of substance or faculty. Protestants 
have always held their position on this point to be 
involved in the statement that man was created in 
the divine image. The loss inflicted by the Fall was 
positive. Conf. Augsb. p. 9: "They teach that after 
the Fall of Adam, all ruen, begotten in order of na- 
ture, are born with sin, i e. ? without the fear of God, 
without trust in God, and with concupiscence." 1 
Eng. Art. ix. : "Original sin standeth not in the fol- 
lowing of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), 
but it is the fault or corruption of the nature of ev- 
ery man that naturally is engendered of the off- 
spring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from 
original righteousness, and is of his own nature in- 
clined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth alw 7 ays con- 
trary to the Spirit, and therefore, in every person 
born into the world, it deserveth God's wrath and 
damnation; and this infection of nature doth remain, 
yea, in them that are regenerated, w 7 hereby the lust 
of the flesh, called in Greek ^pov-qixa o-apKos, which 
some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some 
the affection, some the desire of the flesh, is not sub- 
ject to the law of God; and though there is no con- 
demnation for them that believe and are baptized, 
yet the apostle doth confess that concupiscence and 
lust hath of itself the nature of sin." 2 The Apology 

^-Ibid. p. 89: "Docent, quod post lapsum Adae omnes homi- 
nes, secundum naturam propagati, nascantur cum peccato, h. e. 
sine metu Dei, sine fiducia erga Deum, et cum concupiscentia." 
2 " Hath the nature of sin" i. e., is of sinful tendency. This is 
not so strong as the Apology. "The bias to evil is innate and 
congenital; and this makes it the nature of man, as being in- 
herent and not accidental " : Dr. Pope, Comp. ii. 64, and Higher 
Catechism, p. 122. Yet the Augustinian and Lutheran extreme 
is nearer the truth than the Semi-Pelagian one. [Note, more- 



ACTUAL AND ORIGINAL SIN. 149 

for the Augsburg Confession says: "Our adversaries 
argue that concupiscence is penalty, not sin; Lu- 
ther argues that it is sin. It has been said before 
that Augustine defines original sin as concupiscence. 
Let them find fault with Augustine, if this view is 
inconvenient. Moreover, Paul says (Romans vii. 7) : 
I had not known concupiscence to be sin, unless the 
law had said, Thou shalt not lust. Again (Romans 
vii. 23): I see another law in my members warring 
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into 
subjection to the law of sin which is in my members. 

over, Mr. Wesley's abridgment of the Ninth English Article in 
the Seventh Article of our Twenty -five, adopted by the Christ- 
mas Conference in 1784. Of this action of Mr. Wesley's Dr. 
Summers (Systematic Theology, ii. 17, 18) well says: " The sound 
judgment of John Wesley was strikingly displayed in thus 
abridging the Ninth Article of the Anglican Confession. . . . 
As a minister of a National Church whose confession was gotten 
up on the principle of compromise and comprehension, Wes- 
ley, like other Arminians of the English Church, put his own 
construction upon this article, so as to make it quadrate with 
Arminian orthodoxy. We are very thankful that we are not , 
called upon to do the like. When he abridged the Thirty-nine 
Articles for the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, he 
omitted altogether the ambiguous portion of this article. Like 
the Seventeenth, the Ninth Article has, to say the least, a Cal- 
vinistic tinge. Our Seventh Article is purely Arminian and 
Scriptural. The Anglican Article was evidently derived from 
the Second Article of the Ausburg Confession, which was drawn 
up before the Calvinistic controversy began, and had in view 
the Pelagianism of the Council of Trent, which it opposes." 
Compare Mr. Tigert's addition to Summers's Systematic The- 
ology, ii. 35-44, " §4. Methodist Doctrine of Universal Vicarious 
Satisfaction for Original Sin," together with Dr. Miley's supple- 
mentary treatment in his Appendix iii. (Syst. Theol. ii. 505-524) 
in which he quotes and discusses the views of both Summers 
and Tigert.— J. J. T.] 



150 DOCTRINES PRESUPPOSED IN REDEMPTION. 

Xo caviling can overthrow those testimonies, for 
they plainly call concupiscence sin." 1 

It was from their not recognizing the action of 
divine grace in the unregenerate that the Reformers 
were so unwilling to acknowledge the possibility of 
any good works before conversion. Hence all the 
Reformation creeds speak in the sense of Art. xiii., 
often in stronger language. 2 The Lutherans, hold- 
ing baptism to be the means of regeneration, make 
a difference between the baptized and unbaptized 
in this respect, holding the former capable of good 
works. The jealousy shown for the honor of divine 
grace was admirable but mistaken. 

\ 136. Literature. 

Tulloch, Christian Doctrine of Sin; Wesley's 
Treatise on Original Sin. Dorners discussion of 
the whole subject is very thorough, Syst. Christian 
Doctrine, ii. 297-405, and iii. 9-142; Muller, Christian 
Doctrine of Sin, 2 vols.; Blunt, Diet. Theol. art. 
"Original Sin." 

1 Winer, p. 105; Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, ii. 348. 
*Ibid. pp. 112-114. 



BOOK II. 



DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION, 

I. The Person of Christ. 
II. Atonement. 

III. Experience of Salvation. 

IV. The Church. 

V. The Last Things. 

(151) 



CHAPTER VIIL 

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

$137. Incarnation: Three Elements— $ 138. Uniqueness of the Per- 
son of Christ— $ 139. Equal Importance of Each Element— $ 140. 
Old and New Method of Proof— § Ul. The Divine Name Given to 
Christ— $ 142. Passages Implying Christ's Possession of the Di- 
vine Nature— §143. Christ the Son of God— §144. Christ the Lord 
—§145. Christ Preexistent— §146. Divine Acts— §147. Unique Claims 
and Position of Christ— §148. Unity of Christ's Person— §149. 
Christ's Absolute Sinlessness— §150. Christ's Human Nature Im- 
personal— §151. Universally Received— § 152. Errors Rejected— 
§153. Recapitulation: Ephesians i. 10— §154. Arianism— §155. Apol- 
linari anism— § 156. nestorianism— § 157. eutychianism— § 158. creed 
of Chalcedon— § 159. The Athanasf^x Creed— § 160. Monophysit- 
ism, Monothelitism, and Adoptianism— §161. Relation of the In- 
carnation to Sin— § 162. Socixi anism— § 163. English Arianism— § 164. 
Lutheran Christology: Communicatio Idiomatum— § 165. Result- 
ing Questions— § 166. Modern Kenotists— §167. The State of Hu- 
miliation— § 168. The State of Exaltation— §169. Resurrection, 
Ascension, and Session— § 170. Literature. 

\ 137. Incarnation : Three Elements. 
The doctrine of Sin would naturally be followed by 
that of the Atonement. But as the value of redemp- 
tion depends on the character of the Redeemer, a 
previous question is, Who and what is Christ, the 
Redeemer? The reply of the Church, founding on 
Scripture, is the doctrine of the Incarnation. A di- 
vine Incarnation includes three points — perfect Di- 
vinity, perfect Humanity, and a perfect union be- 
tween the two. 1 The most perfect union known to 

1 "Some things he doth as God, because his Deity alone 
is the wellspring from which they flow; some things as 
man, because they issue from his mere human nature; some 
things jointly both as God and man, because both natures 
concur as principles thereunto": Hooker, v. 53. 3. See 
Blunt, Diet. Theol. "Incarnation;" Donne, Seven Sermons 
on Nativity, Works, vol. i.; Barrow on Apostles' Creed, 
Serm. xxiii., xxiv. 

(153) 



154 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

us is the one called personal, a union constituting 
the natures into a new/ indissoluble personality. 
Even the union of body and soul in man supplies 
only an imperfect analogy, because the elements 
united are not complete natures, but only parts of 
natures, and because the union is dissoluble. The 
Church has always guarded the integrity of these 
three elements with great jealousy. The loss or 
mutilation of either one is fatal to the idea of in- 
carnation. As we shall see afterwards, all error on 
the subject has touched one or other of these three 
points. One error ha% mutilated the human nature ; 
another has denied the divine; a third has substi- 
tuted transmutation or absorption for union; a 
fourth has reduced the union to a relation of moral 
likeness and sympathy, like the one existing between 
every believer and God. 

\ 138. Uniqueness of the Person of Christ, 

Thus, the person of Christ is absolutely unique. 
Christ is not God simply, nor man simply, but God- 
man. Two natures, each complete in its several at- 
tributes, meet in him, neither confounded together 
nor acting independently, but so constituting one 
person that the acts of each are the acts of the per- 
son. It is this feature of absolute uniqueness which 
makes it impossible to bring illustrations from other 
sources. The Incarnate life is different in its con- 
stituents from every other life. The union is as mys- 
terious as that of the three Persons of the Trinity, 

2 An acute Irish critic objects to the word " new," with some 
reason, inasmuch as the divine person of the Son preexisted. 
Still, we speak of the divine-human person, and one is afraid of 
docetism. 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 155 

only the terms nature and person are here trans- 
posed. In the Trinity we speak of one nature and 
three persons, here of one person and two natures. 1 

g 139. Equal Importance of Each. Element. 

Each of the three elements is equally important 
in relation to the idea of Incarnation. In one age 
such stress is laid on the Divinity that the Humanity 
is obscured, as in the first Christian centuries. In 
the present day the converse tendency is strong. 
Sometimes the union is pressed until it becomes 
identity, in another it is so relaxed as to make of 
Christ two persons. The first is Eutychianism, the 
second Nestorianism. But union is not identity, it 
implies distinctness as really as oneness. The im- 
portance of the Humanity is often overlooked from 
the fact of the doctrine taking the form of a proof 
of Christ's Divinity. The reason of its taking this 
form is that only the divinity is called in question, 
the humanity is admitted on all sides. 

I. DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY IN SCRIPTURE; 

2 140. Old and New Method of Proof. 

The old method of proof is to select and classify 
the passages bearing on the question, irrespective of 
the part of Scripture in which they are found. The 
new one, followed by writers like Liddon and White- 
law, 2 is to epitomize the testimony of each inspired 
writer separately. Each method has its obvious ad- 
vantages and disadvantages. Here we take the first 
course as the most compendious. 

J See p. 108. 2 How is the Divinity of Jesus Depicted in Scrip- 
ture? Hodder & Stoughton. 



156 DOCTKINES OF REDEMPTION. 

1 141. The Divine Name Given to Christ. 

The Divine Name is given to Christ in the highest 
sense. John i. 1. This is the only passage in which 
the reference to Christ is quite undisputed. The 
context is too clear to admit of doubt. The first 
clause affirms Christ's preexistence, and is of course 
inconsistent with simple humanitarianism. The "be- 
ginning" was evidently before the creation men- 
tioned in verse 3. The second clause affirms Christ's 
distinctness from and yet presence with God. 1 It 
precludes Sabellianism, but not Arianism. The 
third clause directly excludes Arianism. Note also 
the verbs. The Word " was;" all other things "were 
made" or "became." The Word did not become, was 
not made. The only way of evading the force of the 
passage is to say that "God" in the third clause of 
verse 1 means "God" in a delegated, secondary sense. 
Where is the authority for saying this of "God" in 
the third any more than in the second clause? This 
sense is precluded by the ascription in the third verse 
of creation to Christ, unless Christ is a delegated 
Creator also. But the statement that "all things" 
were created by Christ excludes him from the class 
of created things. The use of the divine name in 
the highest sense is also in harmony with the entire 

la The phrase 'was with God' is remarkable. The idea con- 
veyed by it is not that of simple coexistence, as of two persons 
contemplated separately in company (elvcu fiera), or united under 
a common conception (elvat ovv), or (so to speak) in local rela- 
tion (ehai Trapa), but of being (in some sense) directed toward 
and regulated by that with which the relation is fixed. The 
personal being of the Word was realized in active intercourse 
with and in perfect communion with God": Westcott in Speak- 
er's Commentary, p. 3. See also pp. 10, 11. Comp. 1 John i. 1, 2. 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 157 

strain of the Gospel, the purpose of which is to set 
forth Christ's divine glory. 

Komans ix. 5. The reference of the verse to Christ 
is disputed, but on insufficient grounds. The view 
that the last clause is a doxology to the Father 1 is 
untenable — (a) because a doxology would be out of 
harmony with the strain of the paragraph, which is 
one of profound sorrow for the unbelief of the Jews. 
What has occurred to turn the wail into an anthem? 
The mention of Christ's Jewish descent according 
to the flesh? But this is simply the crowning priv- 
ilege (the adoption, the glory, etc.) of the Jewish peo- 
ple; and these privileges are enumerated, not as 
grounds of joy or praise, but as aggravations of the 
apostle's wonder and sorrow at the unbelief of his 
nation. So sudden a transition as the doxological 
interpretation implies would be abrupt, and out of 
step with all that has preceded. (&) "As concerning 
the flesh" is a limitation, implying that in another re- 
lation Christ did not come of the Jews. This other 
relation should surely be stated in some form. It is 
so stated substantially in Romans i. 3, 4; 1 Timothy 
iii. 16; 1 Peter iii. 18. On the ancient interpretation 
of th,e present passage it is so stated, but not on the 
new one. (c) The position of "blessed," which ordi- 
narily precedes its subject in doxologies, as in Luke 
i. 68 and many other places, while here it follows. 
(d) The words of the last clause occur in Eomans i. 
25 and 2 Corinthians xi. 31 in a declaratory sense. 
There the reference, no doubt, is to the Father, but 
the sense is declaratory, not doxological. In the 
present paragraph the Father is not mentioned. 

1 See margin of Revised Version. 



158 DOCTBINES OF REDEMPTION. 

The strongest argument on the other side is that it 
is not St. Paul's usage to call Christ God, and there- 
fore that it is unlikely he would do so here. But 
precisely the same might be said of St. John, who 
yet, as all admit, does call Christ God in the first 
verse of his Gospel. 1 

These passages are sufficient on this head. No 
adequate reason, however, can be given for contest- 
ing the reference to Christ in 1 John v. 20. There is 
no need to insist on the new rendering in Titus ii. 
13. Even on the old rendering the coordination of 
God and Christ is significant. In 1 Timothy iii. 16, 
external authority is for the Revised Version, in- 
ternal probability for the old. The use of the rela- 
tive pronoun without antecedent, or even a reference 
to "God" in verse 15 as antecedent, is singular. Ac- 
cepting, however, the new version, we then observe 
that the phraseology of the verse is inapplicable to a 
mere man — "manifested" in the flesh. 

\ 142. Passages Implying Christ's Possession of the 
Divine Nature. 

John v. 17, 18. Christ justifies his work on the 
Sabbath by the divine example. He compares his 
own act of healing to the Father's work of providen- 
tial government which is continued on the Sabbath. 
The Jews understood him to claim sonship of the 
most absolute kind, making God "his own Father;" 
and Christ, instead of correcting, accepts and con- 
firms the interpretation. 

John x. 30. Here also the context fixes the mean- 
ing. None can pluck believers out of "my hand" or 

1 See an excellent note by Dr. GifFord in Speaker's Commen- 
tary, p. 178. 



THE PERSON OF CHKIST. 159 

out of "the Father's hand." Christ then justifies 
the interchange of phrase by saying, "I and my Fa- 
ther are one." The unity meant, therefore, is one 
of power and so of essence, not merely of likeness 
and sympathy such as obtains between believers and 
God, xvii. 21. 

Philippians ii. 6-8. Christ's humility is illustrated 
by his descent from a higher to a lower state of being 
(verse 7), and by his conduct in that lower state 
(verse 8). 1 The descent is the becoming man (verse 
7), as is evident both from the terms employed, and 
(verse 8). 1 The descent is the becoming man (verse 
8) was done in the human state. What then was the 
previous state of being (verse 6) from which Christ 
descended? It was a "being in the form of God." 
"Form," though not equivalent to "nature," implies 
the possession of the nature; it is the expression of 
the nature. The form of one order of being cannot 
be united with the nature of another, as e. #., man 
and angel. If "the form of a servant" and "the like- 
ness of men" imply Christ's possession of the nature 
of a servant and of men, then "the form of God" im- 
plies his possession of the nature of God. The divin- 
ity and humanity of Christ stand or fall together, for 
one is expressed in the same terms as the other. Or, 
rather, the divinity is expressed in stronger terms 
than the humanity. "Form" is stronger than "like- 
ness" and "fashion." His humanity may be denied 
with more reason than his divinity. Note also "be- 
ing made" and "taking" in reference to the lower 

1 Note the distinction of principal and subordinate clauses in 
verses 7 and 8 in Revised Version. 



160 DOCTBINES OF REDEMPTION. 

state, in contrast with " being" in the higher. 1 The 
interpretation of this passage is a decisive test of 
the humanitarian view of Christ's person. It is only 
possible at all on this view by diluting the spirit of 
the passage and the separate phrases to the lowest 
minimum of possible meaning. 

Colossians i. 15-17. "Image" is St. Paul's equiv- 
alent for St. John's "Word," and is akin to the 
"form" of Phiiippians. It includes both likeness 
and representation. "Firstborn" of all "creation" 
has at first sight an Arian look, and was eagerly 
seized on by the early Arians. But so to interpret 
it would be to make it contradict the rest of the par- 

1 Both Lightfoot's and Ellicott's exposition of this pas- 
sage should be consulted, as well as that of the following 
one. See Owen on "Christ as the Image of the Father," 
Works, i. 69. Assuming Christ's proper divinity, two ap- 
plications of the whole passage are admissible. Either, 
verse 6 describes the Son's preexistent state, verse 7 the 
act of Incarnation, and verse 8 acts in the incarnate state. 
Or, the whole passage applies to the incarnate state, verse 
6 describing Christ's divine nature, and verse 7 his con- 
cealment, or abstinence from the use, of his divine attri- 
butes. The first seems the best, though some Lutheran di- 
vines favor the latter. Much indeed is made of the objec- 
tion that the name "Christ Jesus," verse 5, cannot apply 
to the preincarnate Son. But is it absolutely unallowable 
to transfer the designations of one state of Christ's being 
to another? Do we not apply the designations of his two 
natures indifferently to the one person? As to the objec- 
tion, that the humility of the act of incarnation cannot be 
proposed as an example to us, it applies just as strongly 
to the second interpretation. Properly divine acts are con- 
stantly so proposed to us, e. g., the divine forgiveness. Our 
forgiveness of others is only a shadow of God's forgiveness 
of us. 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 161 

agraph, in which all creation is ascribed to Christ. 1 
A creature who is also Creator would be a strange 
combination of ideas. " Firstborn of all creation 7 ' 
(7rpcororoK09 irao-q^ ktc(tc<ds) = " firstborn in respect of 
all creation." The genitive is that of the point of 
view. The genitive, like our possessive, case has so 
many shades of meaning that it has constantly to be 
interpreted from the context, e. g. y the love of God. 
"The firstborn from the dead" (verse 18) is a different 
phrase (7tpq)t6tokos Ik t&v veKp&v). St. Paul's "first- 
born" is equivalent to St. John's "only-begotten," 
but the idea of comparison is added, "first, only." 
The chief point of the passage is the ascription of all 
creation to Christ. This is done in universal terms 
of the strongest kind. Christ is the medium or 
agent in creation (in him, through him), the end of 
creation (unto him), before creation (before all 
things), the support of creation (in him all things 
consist). The idea of medium or agent is quite con- 
sistent with the inner relations of the Trinity. 

Hebrews i. 3. "The very image of his substance," * 
the strongest possible language, implying distinc- 
tion and equality at the same time. "Substance" 
(K. V.) is better than "person," The term hypostasis 
or substance was early appropriated to signify "per- 

1 " Firstborn " in regard to creation ; cf. 1 Pet. ii. 19, " con- 
science toward God." Westcott says : " Christian writers from 
early times have called attention to the connection of the two 
words applied in the N. T. to Christ ' the only Son ' (fiovoyevyg) 
and ' the firstborn ' (irporoTonog, Col. i. 15), which present the idea 
of this Sonship under complementary aspects. The first marks 
his relation to God as absolutely without parallel; the other, 
his relation to creation as preexistent and sovereign": Speak- 
er's Comm. p. 12. 
11 



162 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

son" in the Trinitarian controversy, but the New 
Testament use is of course anterior. 

1 143. Christ the Son of God. 
This is Christ's standing designation in the New 
Testament on the lips of St. Paul and St. John, and 
on Christ's own lips. In what sense is the title 
used? Christ is either the Son of God in the same 
sense as Christian believers and the angels, or in a 
higher sense peculiar to himself. If the first were 
the true sense, how could Christ be called the Son 
of God, just as he is called Jesus Christ? A desig- 
nation which a person shares with many others can 
never become a proper name of that person. It is 
evident that the title has a special meaning in refer- 
ence to Christ. Whether that sense is a divine one 
must be learned from the context and the surround- 
ings of the phrase. A careful consideration of pas- 
sages like Matthew xi. 27, xvi. 16, xxii. 42, xxvi. 63; 
Romans i. 3, 4, and numerous passages in St. John's 
Gospel, can scarcely leave the matter doubtful. We 
become children of God by receiving Christ, and be- 
lieving on his name. As Son he is above the angels 
(Hebrews L), above Moses (iii. 5, 6). He is the eter- 
nal Son (Hebrews i. 8). He is God's "own" Son 
(John v. 18; Eomans viii. 3, 32), " only-begotten" Son 
(John i. 18, iii. 16). 1 It is true, the miraculous con- 

1 " The rendering (only-begotten) somewhat obscures the exact 
sense of the original word (fiovoyevfe), which is rather { only- 
horn.' That is, the thought in the original is centered in the 
personal Being of the Son and not in his generation. Christ is 
the One only Son, the One to whom the title belongs in a sense 
completely unique and singular, as distinguished from that in 
which there are many children of God (ver. 12 f.). The use of 
the word elsewhere in the New Testament to describe an only 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 163 

ception and the Resurrection seem assigned as rea- 
sons for Christ's Sonship (Luke i. 35; Acts xiii. 33), 
but they can only be subordinate reasons. They 
would not alone justify all that is predicated of 
Christ in this character. 1 An official sense has 
sometimes been given to "Son," as though it were 
equivalent to Messiah. But no one would choose 
the term "Son" to denote office. It denotes natural 
relation, and nothing else. The official idea is al- 
ready expressed by such terms as Messiah, Lord, 
Prophet, Priest. On the official interpretation we 
should have tautology in Matthew xvi. 16 and John 

i 49 

1 144. Christ the Lord. 

In some passages of the New Testament this title, 
in reference to Christ, seems to be used interchange- 
ably with Jehovah, cf. Matthew iii. 3 with Isaiah xl. 
3 and Malachi iii. 1; John xii. 41 with Isaiah vi.; 1 
Peter ii. 3 with Psalm xxxiv. 8; 1 Peter iii. 15 with 
Isaiah viii. 13; Hebrews i. 10-12 with Psalm cii. 25. 
But apart from these special cases, wherever in the 
New Testament the term Lord occurs Christ is 
meant, except in quotations from the Old Testament/ 
In most places this is certainly the case, and in no 
place is it impossible. See e.g., Hebrews ii.3 and con- 
text, James ii.l. The argument used above of "Son" 
applies also to "Lord." Why is the title not given to 
any prophet or apostle? If Christ were only a great- 
er prophet or apostle, there is no reason why it 
should not be so given. Surely there might be lords 

child (Luke vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38 ; Heb. xi. 17) brings out this 
sense completely " : Westcott, Speaker's Comm. p. 12. 

1 Owen, Works, xii. 177, etc. (Goold's ed.), a full and unan- 
swerable argument from Scripture ; Kennedy, The Self-revela- 
tion of Jesus Christ, p. 155; Barrow on Apostles' Creed, Serm. 
xxi. ; TrefFry, Eternal Sonship, p. 166, and passim. 



164 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

of different rank and authority. But Christ, and 
Christ only, is designated the Lord. 



i 



§145. Christ Preexist ent. 

Though this cannot be inferred merely from Christ 
being "sent" into the world (see John i. 6), the num- 
ber of times the phrase is used of Christ (nearly thir- 
ty times in St. John's Gospel) is remarkable, and 
can only be explained by supposing that it has a 
special sense in reference to him. Other similar 
phrases are quite unequivocal in meaning: John iii. 
31, " cometh from above, from heaven;" xiii. 3, "came 
forth from God and goeth unto God" (vi. 33, 38, 51, 
62, xvi. 27, 28, xvii. 5; 1 Corinthians xv. 47; Mark i. 
38; Ephesians iv. 8-10). See also John i. 1, 15. 
Westcott finds in the latter passage absolute, es- 
sential priority, including, of course, priority in 
time 2 — John viii. 58. The Jews understood Christ 
to affirm his own actual existence before Abraham. 
If Christ did not mean the same, he trifled with them 
and with words. He uses his accustomed solemn 
preface, "Verily, verily, I say unto you." If he only 

1 Barrow on Apostles' Creed, Serm. xxii. 2 "The precedence 
in dignity (iii. 33) which Christ at once assumed when he was 
manifested was due to his essential priority. He was in his es- 
sence (viii. 58) before John, and therefore at his revelation he 
took the place which corresponded with his nature. The origi- 
nal phrase in the second clause (irp&rog juov, Yulg. prior me) is 
very remarkable. It expresses not only relative, but (so to 
speak) absolute priority. He was first altogether in regard to 
me, and not merely former as compared with me " : Speaker's 
Comm. p. 13. In the light of this exposition Westcott's previous 
remark, that "the supposed reference to the preexistence of the 
Word seems to be inconsistent with the argument," sounds 
strange. "Absolute priority" means every kind of priority, 
temporal included. 



THE PEBSON OF CHRIST. 165 

meant existence in the divine thought or purpose, 
this is true of every human being, and of every great 
man especially. Note again the different verbs, " Be- 
fore Abraham became, I am;" Vulgate, "Antequam 
fleret Abraham, ego sum." Preexistence does not 
indeed necessarily imply eternity and divinity; but 
taken in connection with the other proofs, it can 
mean nothing else. 

g 146. Divine Acts. 
Creation and Judgment are the two greatest acts 
of God in the physical and moral world respectively, 
implying possession of the highest divine attributes 
and authority. Both are ascribed to Christ. For Cre- 
ation, see John i. 3; Hebrews i. 3; Colossians i. 16; 
and Judgment, Matthew vii. 23, xiii. 42, xxv. 31; 
John v. 22, 27; 2 Corinthians v. 10, etc. Creation is 
indeed said to be "through" and "in" Christ; but this 
precisely expresses the divine function or relation 
of the Son in creation, providence, and redemption 
alike. The early mention of Christ as Judge in Mat- 
thew's Gospel should be noticed, disproving as it 
does the assertion that the Synoptic Gospels differ 
from St. John's Gospel on this subject. 

\ 147. Unique Claims and Position of Christ. 
He ever preaches himself as the object of faith, 
the Way to the Father, the Light of the world, the 
Resurrection and the Life. Who else could do this? 
The apostles preach Christ, Christ preaches himself. 
Paul says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ;" 
Christ says, "He that believeth in me." This ex- 
presses all the difference between Christ and those 
who stand nearest to him, and the difference is im- 
mense. It implies a corresponding difference in the 



166 DOCTEINES OF REDEMPTION. 

nature of Christ and of the apostles. Matthew xi. 
27 speaks of a mutual knowledge of the Father and 
the Son, which is quite unique. Iu John iii 16 the 
greatness of the Father's love is determined by the 
greatness of the Son. In Romans v. S. God c 
mends "his own love" to us "in that Christ died for 
us." In viii. 9. "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of 
Christ" are used interchangeably. In verses 33 and 
39, "love of Christ" and "love ol God" are used in- 
terchangeably. 1 In 2 Corinthians viii. 9. Christ is 
said to have been rich, and to have shown his grace 
by becoming poor for us. If he was a mere man, 
when and in what sense was he rich, and how did he 
become poor for our sakes? In Galatians i. 1. "from 
man" and "through man" are expressly opposed to 
"through Jesus Christ and God the Father." In 
Jude 21 believers are exhorted to look "for the mer- 
cy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." just 
as they are to "pray in the Holy Spirit." and "keep 
themselves in the love of God" — the strongest pos- 
sible testimony to the supreme Deity of Christ. The 
salutation at the head of nearly all the epistles runs. 
"Grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord 
Jesus Christ," Romans i. 7. etc. What meaning 
could the comparison in John xiv, 2^ have on the 
lips of a mere man? See also John xiv. 13. 14; He- 
brews i. ; Matthew x. 32, 33, 37 ; xi. 2S : John x. 17. 1?. 
for incidental evidence. "When I ask myself what 
are the proofs of Christ's divinity which the Scrip- 
ture affords, when I inquire whether he did himself 
claim to be God. I find evidence of this not so much 

3 In verse 32 there is another reading, "love of G-od," but 

the Revisers prefer the old reading. 



THE PEBSON OF CHRIST. 167 

in texts where this in as many words is asserted — 
though these are most needful — but far more in the 
position toward every other man which he uniformly, 
and as a matter of course, assumes. What man, that 
was not man's Maker as well as his fellow, could 
have required that father and mother, w r ife and chil- 
dren, should all be postponed to himself; that when 
any competition between his claims and theirs arose, 
he should be everything and they nothing? That 
not merely these, which though very close to a man, 
are yet external to him; but that his very self, his 
own life, should be hated, when on no other condi- 
tions Christ should be loved ?" x 

II. INFERENCES FROM THE DOCTRINE, 

I 148. Unity of Christ's Person. 

We saw before that the Church formulated the 
doctrine of the Trinity as a means of harmonizing 
different statements of Scripture, which affirm the 
existence of three divine persons and the divine 
unity. Scripture gives the materials which human 
thought then elaborates. The doctrine of Christ's 
person is arrived at in a similar way. Scripture as- 
cribes human attributes and acts to Christ, implying 
the complete human nature in him; it also ascribes 
divine attributes and acts to him, implying the di- 
vine nature in him, and yet it knows but one Christ. 
One person speaks and acts, both in a divine and hu- 
man way. He is the subject of both classes of at- 

1 Trench, Studies in the Gospels, p. 251; Lacordaire, Jesus 
Christ, "Conferences" (Chapman and Hall); Godet, Defense 
of Christian Faith, Lect. vi. 



168 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

tributes and acts. All this is compendiously ex- 
pressed in the statement that in Christ there are two 
natures in one person. This is what is meant by the 
hypostatic union. In Christ there are not two cen- 
ters of life, but one, just as in ourselves. The life 
has two sides, but it is one. We conceive the per- 
son as underlying the natures or constituted by them. 
The bearing of this on the Atonement is obvious. 
The death of Christ is the death of a divine person, 
his death in a human nature, but still his death. 
Hence its extraordinary value. If the human nature 
merely existed side by side with the divine without 
personal union, its acts and sufferings would be apart 
from and unaffected by the divine. But it is not so. 
The nature which suffers and dies has become an in- 
tegral part of the life of the divine Son. See John 
iii. 13, vi. 62; Acts xx. 28; 1 Corinthians ii. 8S 

§149. Christ's Absolute Sinlessness. 

For this characteristic, so essential to a perfect 
Atonement, the Incarnation is an absolute guaran- 
tee, 2 Corinthians v. 21; Hebrews iv. 15, vii. 26. As 
to the fact of Christ's absolute sinlessness, there is 
perfect unanimity in the Church. But on one point 
two opinions are held, namely, whether sin was pos- 
sible to Christ or not, some affirming the possibility, 

1 Owen, Works, i. 235; Jackson, Bk. vii. ch. xxx. "Inas- 
much as the whole human nature in itself was but an ap- 
pendix of his divine person (no person distinct from it), 
whatsoever Christ Jesus did do or suffer in this nature, was 
done and suffered by the Eternal Son of God": viii. ch. i., 
folio ed. i. 763. Hooker, Bk. v. 53. 4. The phrase "appen- 
dix" is not happy. 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 169 

others denying it. Both schools of thought equally 
deny the fact. One holds the posse non peccare, the 
others the non posse peccare. Certainly at first sight 
there is much to be said for the possibility. Other- 
wise, Christ's temptation seems unreal, his victory 
seems to lose force for us, his sympathy with us to 
be imperfect. But what is meant by the reality of 
temptation? Is temptation more real to the good 
or the bad? Which suffers most from inducements 
to dishonesty, the honest or dishonest? Does the 
reality of temptation increase with the liability to 
yield to it? In point of fact, it is the most upright 
and virtuous who feel most keenly the assaults of 
sin. The purer the nature, the keener the pang of 
solicitation to wrong. Absolute purity, then, in- 
stead of neutralizing temptation, would lend it great- 
er keenness. The argument from sympathy would 
prove too much. If sympathy depends on actual 
identity of circumstances, actual sin in Christ would 
surely have still further heightened his sympathy. 
Really the argument lies the other way. The farther 
anyone is removed from sin, the more valuable his 
sympathy. We need the help of the strong, not of 
the weak. Is sympathy with man impossible to an- 
gels? Edward Irving saw the tendency of the ar- 
gument, and ascribed a sinful nature to Christ. This 
the whole Church has ever denied. As to example, 
is not God himself proposed as our example? The 
insuperable barrier to the possibility of sin in Christ 
is the idea of the Incarnation. How is the possibil- 
ity of sin conceivable in the case of a human nature 
personally united to the divine? We see no way 
of meeting this difficulty. The unique position in 



170 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

which human nature is placed in the Incarnation 
must have modifying effects. 1 

1 150. Christ's Human Nature Impersonal. 2 

Here again we have two schools of opinion, one 
affirming the impersonality as necessary to the unity 
of Christ's person, the other denying it as infringing 
on the perfection of his humanity. The dispute real- 
ly seems to be one of definition of terms. The two 
sides understand personality and impersonality in 
different senses. When writers like Canon Liddon, 
following in the wake of the whole Catholic school, 
affirm impersonality, they mean that the human na- 
ture never existed and acted apart from the divine, 
a surely indisputable proposition. From the instant 
of its creation, Christ's human nature was assumed 
into union with the divine. To give it a separate 

1 Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, Lect. vi. "It is not nec- 
essary to have had every experience in order to recognize 
the truth of different feelings in human nature, and to have 
sympathy with them. The possession of a common human- 
ity, with love at the heart, gives the power. Christ did not 
need to take every place and trial to qualify himself. Those 
recorded are more than enough to make us feel his oneness 
with us. . . . The soul of man through one experience 
can transfer itself into many. So with a great poet. Christ, 
through his human experience, has infinite powers of such 
realization. In regard to sin he took upon him all con- 
nected with it, except that which would have unfitted him 
for being our Saviour — an actual participation in sin. . . . 
Sin more than aught else blunts the tender edge of sym- 
pathy, whereas sinlessness which has struggled with temp- 
tation gains power to understand it without losing sensi- 
tiveness": Dr. Ker, Thoughts for Heart and Life, pp. 5, 104. 
2 John of Damascus and Peter Lombard first developed the 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 171 

center of life and action is to divide Christ into two 
persons, the error of Nestorianisin. The personal 
Word existed previously, and took into union with 
himself, not an individual already existing, but hu- 
man nature. Again, those who affirm the personal- 
ity seem to mean by it completeness, an equally in- 
disputable truth, asserted by the other side and by 
the whole Church. If by personality we understand 
the presence in Christ of all the elements of the 
human — body, soul, spirit; thought, feeling, will — 
then his human nature was personal by universal 
acknowledgment. But if by it is meant that Christ's 
humanity existed and acted apart from the divine, 
how can any believer in the unity of his person assert 
it? The impersonality, then, is a corollary of the 
unity, and is affirmed in this sense. It seems best to 

idea: Luthardt, p. 174. "If the Son of God had taken to him- 
self a man now made and already perfected, it would of ne- 
cessity follow that there are in Christ two persons, the one 
assuming and the other assumed; whereas the Son of God 
did not assume a man's person unto his own, but a man's 
nature unto his own Person, and therefore took semen, the 
seed of Abraham, the very first original element of our 
nature, before it was come to have any personal human 
subsistence": Hooker, Bk. v. 52. 3. "V7e deny that the hu- 
man nature of Christ had any such subsistence of its own 
as to give it a proper personality, being from the time of 
its conception assumed into subsistence with the Son of 
God": Owen, xii. 210. And further on the point: "Christ 
was a true man, because he had the true essence of a man, 
soul and body, with all their essential properties. A pe- 
culiar personality belongeth not to the essence of a man, 
but to his existence in such a manner. Neither do we deny 
Christ to have a person as a man, but to have a human 
person," etc. See also Jackson, Bk. vii. ch. xxx. 7. 



172 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

say, '-Christ was man." not '•Christ was a man." 1 
It is a mistake to suppose that the idea of the im- 
personality of Christ's human nature is taught only 
by the Catholic school of divines. Dr. Owen is on 
the same side. He says: "The eternal person of the 
Son of Cud. or the divine nature in the person of the 
Sun. did. by an ineffable act of his divine power and 
love, assume our nature into an individual subsist- 
ence in or with himself; that is. to be his own. even 
as the divine nature is his" a. 3-9 1. Thus, "the eter- 
nal person of the Son" did not assume "a human per- 
son." but "human nature." The prevention of that 
nature 'the human' from any subsistence of its own 
— by its assumption into personal union with the Son 
of God. in the first instant of its conception — is that 
which is above all miracles." "Although the per- 
son of Christ, as God and man. be constituted by 
this union, yet his person absolutely, and his indi- 
vidual subsistence, was perfect, absolutely anteced- 
ent unto that union."- Trench says: "This question 

-"The a::emp: to express The truth with precision is be- 
se: with dimcnl-y.. and even with peril. Thus, in using the 
words "personality' and ' impersonal' in relation to Christ. 

*. f.. nniteness in some direction. As applied to The divine 
nature. Therefore. :he word is uot more Than a necessary ac- 
commodation, required to give such distinctness to our ideas 
as may be attainable. The word 'impersonal.' again, as 
applied to The Lord's human nature, is uot to be so under- 
stood as to exclude in any way The right application of the 
word "man' to him. as it is used both by himself (John viii. 
40) and by St. Paul (1 Tim. ii. 3>": Westcott in Speaker. 
p. 11. -Works, vol. i. pp. 15. 45. ddb 234: see also pp. 224. 226. 
239. and note on nrevious pa^re. 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 173 

could never have been so much as started, except in 
a Xestorian severance of the Lord into two persons, 
and this in the contemplation of a human person in 
him as at some moment existing apart from the di- 
vine. When we acknowledge in him two natures, 
but these at no time other than united in the one per- 
son of the Son of God, the whole question at once 
falls to the ground. Christ was perfect man in the 
sense of having everything belonging to the complete- 
ness of the human nature; but there is not, and there 
never at any moment has been, any other person but 
the Son of God; his human body and soul at the very 
moment of their union with one another were also 
united unto the eternal Word, so that there is not, nor 
ever has been, any human person to contemplate." 1 

III. DOGMA OF CHKIST'S PERSON. 
1 151. UniversaUy Received. 
This is the only dogma in the whole range of the- 
ology which the whole Christian Church receives 
without important variation or modification. With 
respect to other doctrines, such as Original Sin and 
Atonement, while there is agreement about essen- 
tials, the differences in dogmatic statement are con- 
siderable. But all Christendom substantially ac- 
cepts the teaching of the Xicene and Athanasian 
Creeds. Xone give a more uncompromising support 
to the creeds than the great Puritan divines. They 
knew full well that it is not a question of Nicene met- 
aphysics, but of vital doctrine. In nothing is the wis- 
dom of the early councils and creeds more clearly 
seen than in their being content with negativing er- 
ror; they do not go on to frame positive theories. 

1 Studies in the Gospels, p. 27 



174 DOCTBINES OF REDEMPTION. 

1 152. Errors Rejected. 

Among the many forms of error discussed and re- 
jected in early days, Unitarianism was not one. 1 In- 
dividuals within the Church may have betrayed Uni- 
tarian tendencies, but this was all. Each of the 
great heresies on this subject, even Arianism, was 
far removed from such teaching, and as a rule tended 
in the opposite direction. Not Unitarianism, but 
Docetism, w 7 hich reduced the human in Christ to 
mere illusory appearance, and made the divine ev- 
erything, expressed the prevailing spirit of the early 
ages. Perhaps Ebionitism may be thought to be an 
exception ; but too little is known of it to allow it to 
be taken into account. There is no proof whatever 
that it had any place within the Church, or was rec- 
ognized as a form of Christian life and thought. The 
same is true of Gnostic speculations. 

\ 153. Recapitulation : Ephesians i. 10. 

Among the pioneers of Christian thought Irenseus 
is an interesting figure. He is fond of speaking of 
Christ as the recapitulation of humanity. 2 The idea 

1 Except in so far as Unitarianism is akin to Sabellianism. 
2 "Filius Dei existens semper apud Patrem, et homo f actus, 
longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in 
compendio nobis salutem praestans, ut quod perdideramus 
in Adam i. e. secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse Dei, 
hoc in Christo Jesu reciperemus. Quia enim non erat pos- 
sible, eum hominem, qui semel victus fuerat et elisus per 
inobedientiam, replasmare et obtinere brabium victoriae; 
iterum autem impossibile erat ut salutem perciperet, qui 
sub peccato ceciderat. Utraque operatus est Filius, Verbum 
Dei existens, a Patre descendens et incarnatus, et usque ad 
mortem descendens, et dispensationem consummans salutis 
nostrae": quoted in Owen, Works, i. 26. 



THE PEESON OE CHBIST. 175 

is a many-sided one, embracing the notions of sum- 
ming up, fulfillment, and reparation. Christ's per- 
son recapitulated human nature, his work recapitu- 
lated the old dispensation, his obedience recapitu- 
lated Adam's disobedience. Both to Adam and 
Christ the title homo universalis, principalis, is given. 
The idea is taken from Ephesians i. 10 [dvaKc<pa- 

XaiwcracrOaL^. 

\ 154. Arianism. 

The erroneous speculations which gave rise to 
definitions, and which were formally rejected, were 
Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianisni, and Eu- 
tychianism. Of the first we have already said 
enough (§100, pp. 115, 116). 

\ 155. Apollinarianism. 
Apollinarianism 1 (Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea) 
denied to Christ a human spirit (TrvevfAa), allowing 
to his human nature only a body and an animal soul 
(ij/vx^). The place of the higher principle was taken 
by the divine Logos. The theory was supported by 
three arguments. First, the exclusion of the human 
spirit was supposed to be necessary in order to 
Christ's sinlessness, as though contact with a sen- 
suous nature necessarily defiled the spirit. Then, it 
was said that only on this supposition is the unity 
of Christ's person conceivable. If the spirit, which 
is the seat of will and personality, is present, we have 
two persons. And again, a human spirit was said to 
be superfluous, inasmuch as it was of the same na- 
ture as the divine Logos or Reason, which was well 
fitted to take its place. Whatever these arguments 

x On these heresies, see Blunt, Diet. Sects, and Diet. Theol. 
passim ; Shedd, Hist. Christian Doctr. i. 394; Pope, Fern. Lect. p. 
189 ; Oomp. ii, 135 ; Cunningham, Hist. Theology, vol. i, ch, x, 



176 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

are worth, they are far outweighed by a single ob- 
jection on the other side. To take away the spirit 
from human nature is to take away its distinctive 
element. A body and animal soul do not constitute 
human but brute nature. The humanity is thus mu- 
tilated, and the idea of Incarnation destroyed. It 
was also urged by the Church, that if the human 
spirit was not assumed by Christ, it did not share in 

redemption (to oltt poo~\r]7rTOV Kol aOepoLTrevTOV, "that 

which is not assumed is not healed"). All the great 
Fathers opposed the heresy, which was condemned 
at Constantinople, 381 A.D. Long afterwards, the 
clause "he descended into Hades," i. e., in spirit, was 
adopted in the Apostles' Creed as a protest against 
it. 1 

§ 156. Nestorianism. 

Nestorianism (Nestorius, Patriarch of Constanti- 
nople) divided Christ into two persons. Whether 
Nestorius intended to do this is more than doubtful, 
but such was the tendency of his teaching. He 
started with the principle that the human is incapa- 
ble of the divine, and so could never get from one to 
the other. He admitted only a unity of relation, not 
a personal one. The test in the controversy was the 
term Ocotokos, which Nestorius would not accept. 
At first sight, indeed, the term seems objectionable. 
But all that was meant to be asserted by it was that 
in Christ there is but one person, that Mary did not 
give birth to a man who was afterwards united to 
the Logos. Stanch Protestants have defended the 
theological, not the devotional, use of the term. 2 

1 Pearson on Creed; Barrow on Creed, Ser. xxviii. 2 Shedd, 
History of Christian Doctrine, i. 399 ; Dr. David Duncan of the 
Colloquia Peripatetica, but the reference has escaped me. 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 177 

Nestorius would only call Mary XptaroToW. His op- 
ponent, Cyril of Alexandria, was personally a far 
less estimable character, but he took the right side 
on this question. While preserving the distinctness 
of the two natures as jealously as Nestorius, he gives 
them only one center in the personality of the Logos, 
who, existing antecedently, assumed the human na- 
ture into union with himself. Nestorius's connec- 
tion with the Antiochian school of teaching partly 
explains his aberration. His error was condemned 
at Ephesus, 431. 1 

1 157. Eutychianism. 

Eutychianism (Eutyches, presbyter of Constan- 
tinople) was a reaction from the former error. In 
his anxiety to avoid a duality of persons, Eutyches 
merged the human nature in the divine. After the 
Incarnation he acknowledged but one nature. This 
error was condemned at Chalcedon, 451. 

It is important to observe that the last three er- 
rors were not propounded by deniers of the Incarna- 
tion, but were intended as theories of the Incarna- 
tion. 2 

§ 158. Creed of Chalcedon. 

The clauses of the Chalcedon Creed which were 
directed against these errors are the following: " Per- 
fect as to his godhead and perfect as to his manhood, 

^uthardt, Comp. p. 172; Owen, Works, i. 230. 2 "Athana- 
sianism is just the negation of all possible theory on the subject 
of Christ's person; and so, too, of his work. All the heresies 
are just explanations of the mystery": Duncan, p. 104. See 
Hooker, Bk. v. 51, etc. Another point that has exercised theo- 
logical speculation is, why it was the Son in particular who he- 
came incarnate. See Hooker, Bk. v. 51. 3; Owen, "Works, i. 27; 
Jackson, Bk. vii. ch. xxv. 6. 
12 



178 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and 
human flesh subsisting; consubstantial with the Fa- 
ther as to his godhead, and consubstantial with us as 
to his manhood; acknowledged in two natures with- 
out mixture, without conversion, without division, with- 
out separation. We confess not a Son divided and 
sundered into two persons, but one and the same 
Son." The four important terms are ao-vyxvTus, orpor- 

| 159. The Athanasian Creed. 
The Athanasian Creed says: "Perfect God and 
perfect man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh 
subsisting. Who, although he be God and Man, vet 
he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion 
of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the man- 
hood into God; one, altogether, not by confusion of 
substance, but by unity of person." Dr. Pope says : 
" Christ is truly God, perfectly man, unconfusedly 
in two natures, indivisibly in one person." 1 

§ 160. Monophysitism, Mcnothelitism, and Adoptianism. 
The three errors just noted were afterwards re- 
vived in other forms, Eutychianism in Monophysit- 
ism. Apollinarianism in Monothelitism. Xestorian- 
ism in Adoptianism. Monophysitism left only one 
nature in Christ, a composite one, in which the hu- 
man became merely an accident of the divine. Mon- 
othelitism robbed the human nature of the faculty 
of will, replacing it by the divine will. The Church 
rightly held to two wills, as integral parts of the na- 
tures, the human being harmonious with and sub- 
ordinate to the divine. The errors were condemned 
at the fifth and sixth Councils of Constantinople, 553 
1 Corop. ii. 107. 



THE PEESON OF CHRIST. 179 

and 680. Adoptianism arose in Spain in the eighth 
century. According to it, Christ was God's Son by 
nature as to his divine nature, by adoption as to his 
human. Its Nestorian tendency was instinctively 
felt and rightly condemned, Council of Frankfort, 
794. 1 

We need not linger on such idle speculations as 
the Mhilianism of the Middle Ages, which argued 
that the Incarnation made no change in the life of 
the eternal Son. The Docetic spirit shows here 
again its persistent force. The divine life no doubt 
remains unchanged in itself, but not in its relations. 
Peter Lombard favored, Aquinas and Scotus op- 
posed, the notion. 

1 It may be well here to give the Nicene Creed, " drawn up 
at, or soon after, the Council of Nicsea," bracketing the clauses 
[usually, but incorrectly, supposed to have been] added at the 
Council of Constantinople, 381: Ui<rrevo/zev Eig ha Qebv, Uarepa 
iravroKpdropa, ivotrjrrjv ovpavov Kal yf}g t oparov re irdvrov Kal dopdrov, 
Ka£ elg ha HLvpiov 'Itjgovv "Kptcrrbv, rov Ylbv rov Qeov fiovoyevij^ [rbv ek 
rov Tiarpbg yevvrjQevra irpb irdvrov rov al6vcov"\ qug ek (pordg, Qebv aXy- 
divbv ek Qeov clXt]6lvov ) yewrjBevra, ov iroLrjdevra^ 6/ioovgiov tg~ Tlarpi' 61, 
oi rd irdvra kyevero, rov SI rjfiag rovg avdp6)~ovg, Kal 8lcl tt/v rjjierepav 
GOTrjpiav, mre7$6vra hn r&v ovpav&v, Kal oapKtddevra [eK Tivevfiarog ayiov 
Kal Maptag rfjg irapOhov,'] Kal EvavOpoTrrjoavra, [oravpodhra re virep 
fjfioiv sir l TLovt'lov TlcXdrov^ Kal iraOovra, [Kal ra(phra~\ ml dvaardvra 
r?j rplry yfiEpa Kara rag ypacpdg' ml dveWovra elg rovg ohpdvovg, \_ml 
mdE^ouEvov ek dentil, rov Uarpbg^ ml ird2.iv kpxd/ievov juetcl So^yg Kplvai 
£fivrag ml VEKpovg' [ov ri)g fiaad&iag ovk earai re?iog~\. Kal elg rb TLvEv/ua 
rb ayiov [rb Kvptov, Kal rb ^(dottolov^ rb ek rov Uarpbg EKiropsvo/iEVOVj rb 
ovv Udrpl Kal Tlu avjuirpoaKwovfievov Kal cwdo^a^ofiEvov^ rb TvaJ^aav Sid 
r&v irpo(j)7irG)v. ' "Elg fiiav ayiav KaSo7aKrjv Kal dirooroliKrpj £KK?i7]c>iaV 
6fio?,oyov[i£v ev /3d7rri(TjLLa Eig dcpEGtv d^apri&v, irpoodoKCdiiev hvdaramv 
vEKpoiv Kal (,urjv rov fj,£/i?Mvrog alovog"]. 'Ajirjv. See Norris, Rudi- 
ments of Theology, p. 256; the other creeds also are given 
with comments. Also A. Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole d. alten 
Kirche, pp. 78, 82; Pope, Comp. ii. 138, 189; Fern. Lect. p. 195. 



180 DOCTBINES OF REDEMPTION. 

1 161. Relation of the Incarnation to Sin. 

Another point on which opinions differ is, whether 
the Incarnation would have taken place if there had 
been no sin. In the Middle Ages, Kupert of Deutz 
argued that it would, Aquinas that it would not. 
In our days, Martensen and Dorner and others ad- 
vocate the first alternative. 1 They argue that it is 
unworthy to make the greatest work of divine grace 
depend on man's sin, so that if there had been no sin 
there would have been no incarnation. On their 
view, all that depends on sin is the form which the 
incarnation took. Apart from sin, redemption, suf- 
fering, and death would have been unnecessary, and 
the incarnate life of the Son of God would have taken 
a glorious form. But all such speculations and as- 
sertions are beyond our competence. Undoubtedly 
the obvious suggestion of Scripture is that incarna- 
tion is in order to redemption. Sin is in no case the 
cause or source, but merely the occasion, of incarna- 
tion as of redemption. While it is quite true that 
the Incarnation not only fulfills purposes of grace, 
but is also God's highest revelation of himself, we 
cannot say that a perfect revelation would have been 
impossible in any other way. "Secret things belong 
unto the Lord." 

Augustine says: " Tolle morbos, tolle vulnera, et nulla causa 
est medicinse. Si honio non periisset, films hominis non venis- 
set": Luthardt, p. 167. The other school maintain that the 
Incarnation is necessary to the perfection even of unfallen hu- 
manity. See also Dean Jackson's excellent remarks, Bk. viii. 
ch. iii.; Owen, Works, i. 23; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 
p. 260; Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, etc., ii. 217, iii. 
141, 



THE PERSON OE CHRIST. 181 

1 162. Socinianism. 

Socinianisru took its name and its rise from two 
Italians of noble rank, Lseiius and Faustus Socinus, 
uncle and nephew, who in the sixteenth century mi- 
grated from Italy, first to Switzerland and then to 
Poland. Faustus embodied their views in the Raco- 
vian Catechism (1605), and his work, De Jesu Ghristi 
Servatore. Socinianisni utterly rejected the doc- 
trines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and 
vicarious Atonement, going much farther than an- 
cient Arianism and Sabellianism. Still, while mak- 
ing Christ a mere man, it ascribed to him several 
prerogatives which have fallen away in Unitarian- 
ism. He was preserved from taint of sin by miracu- 
lous conception ; he was specially endowed with the 
Holy Spirit at his baptism, and early in his ministry 
was taken up to heaven to receive special instruction 
and authority; his Resurrection was held fast, as 
well as his exaltation at the Ascension to dignity 
and power over angels as well as men ; worship is due 
to him, of course only such worship as the Roman 
Church gives to the Virgin Mary. The Holy Spirit 
is explained away as a divine influence. The foren- 
sic view of the atonement was also an object of spe- 
cial attack. 

\ 163. English Arianism. 
In the last century, and somewhat earlier, an 
Arian party arose in England, represented by Sam- 
uel Clarke, as well as by Whiston, Whitby, and oth- 
ers. The chief permanent effect was in calling forth 
the replies of Bull (Defense of the Nicene Faith) 
and Waterland. Views ranging from Socinianism 



182 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

through A nanism to Unitarianisni prevailed exten- 
sively both in the English Church and Dissenting 
communities; witness the names of Hoadley, Black- 
burne, Lindsey, Belshani. The two latter became 
avowed Unitarians. The chief Unitarian teacher 
was Dr. Priestley. The history of many of these 
writers and movements shows that Unitarianisni is 
often a reaction against extreme Calvinism. 1 

1 164. Lutheran Christology : Gommunicatio 
I&iomatum. 

The Lutheran Christology presents some points of 
peculiarity. 2 Its starting point is the Com/nunicatio 
Idiomatum, by which is meant the communication of 
the properties of the divine nature in Christ to the 
human, the latter being thus endowed with omnip- 
otence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. This is held 
to be a necessary consequence of the Incarnation. 
No one, it is said, can hold the Incarnation in earnest 
and deny this inference. But the inference is one- 
sided. Why does not the communication of the 
properties of the human to the divine follow by like 
necessity? This, of course, is not asserted; indeed, 
is strenuously denied. But if logical necessity is 
good in one case, how can it be bad in the other? 
The Eutychian confusion of natures is not held, but 
it is dangerously near. Besides, the doctrine seems 
to reverse the aspect under which the Incarnation 
is contemplated. Scripture ever presents it as an 
act of condensation on the part of the divine; the 
Lutheran doctrine represents it, in effect at least, 
as principally an elevation of the human. The doc- 
trine of the Conimunicatio Idiomatum is practically 

1 Blunt, Diet, of Sects. 2 Luthardt, p. 179 ; Pope, Comp. ii. 191. 



THE PEBSON OF CHRIST. 183 

applied to support the Lutheran idea of Consubstan- 
tiation. 1 It is in virtue of this effect of the Incarna- 
tion that Christ's body is endowed with ubiquity and 
unites itself with the Eucharistic elements. Wheth- 
er there is any further connection between these two 
Lutheran articles, we need not inquire. Lutheran 
expositors generally interpret the whole of the pas- 
sage, Philippians ii. 6-8, of the Incarnate Son, giving 
it this particular turn (p. 160, note). 

\ 165. Resulting Questions. 

The doctrine of the Communicatio at once raised 
other questions. How is the asserted possession of 
divine attributes by Christ's human nature to be rec- 
onciled with the phenomena of his earthly life, in 
which those attributes are absent? In the Refor- 
mation age two answers were given to tlm question. 
The great theologian, Brentz of Tubingen, 2 said that 
these attributes were really possessed and exercised 
by the human, but both possession and exercise were 

1 "Non confundimus naturarum diversitatem; veruntamen 
Christum non ut tu asseris Deum factum, sed Deum factum. 
Christum confitemur. Quia non cum pauper esset, dives factus 
est, sed cum dives esset, pauper factus est, ut nos divites faceret ; 
neque enim cum esset in forma servi, formam Dei accepit ; sed 
cum esset in forma Dei, formam servi accepit; similiter etiam 
nee, cum esset caro, Verbum est factum ; sed cum esset Verbum, 
caro factum est": Maxentius, quoted by Owen, i. 16. Owen 
says of the Lutheran doctrine: " For that which some have for 
a long season troubled the Church withal, about such a real 
communication of the properties of the divine nature into the human, 
which should neither be a transfusion of them into it, so as to 
render it the subject of them, nor yet consist in a reciprocal de- 
nomination from their mutual inbeing in the same subject — it is 
that which neither themselves do, nor can any other, well un- 
derstand," i. 233. 2 Luthardt, p. 187. 



184: DOCIPJN£S OF REDEMPTION. 

veiled under infirmity, suffering, and death. The 

Ascension was rhe hrst display ui these attributes 
on the part of the man Christ Jesus. Brentz's fol- 
lowers were called Kryptists. Another equally great 

theologian. Chemnitz of Giessen. said that while the 
attributes were communicated in the Incarnation 
to the human, they were not exercised or only par- 
tially exercised. This was the self-emptying of the 

Incarnate Son. At the Ascension divine powers be- 
gan to be fully and openly exercised by the human. 
The Kryptists and Kenotists both equally held the 
common Lutheran doctrine of the Commiuucaiio. 
They differed as to what followed. One made Christ 
during his earthly life veil the use. the other made 
him renounce the use. of divine powers. The em- 
phasis laid on the difference between the states of 
Humiliation and Exaltation should be noticed. 1 

\ 166. Modern Kenotists, 
The Kenotists just mentioned must be distin- 
guished from the Kenotists of our own days. The 
latter school, which includes considerable divines, 
both of the Lutheran and Reformed Church. 2 applies 
the idea of self -emptying .Pliilippians ii. T) to the 
divine nature of the Son itself. It is in fact an at- 
tempt to explain the mode of the Incarnation. L e. % 
to explain the inexplicable. According to this the- 
ory, the eternal Son in the act of Incarnation volun- 
tarily stripped himself of his divine attributes and 
powers, reduced himself to the dimensions of human 
nature, became in the most literal sense a man. and 

^ope. Oomp. ii. 193: Fern. Lect. p. 206. 2 Lutheran— Lieb- 

ner.Hofmann. Thomasius, Luthardt. Delitzsch.Martensen,Gess; 
Reformed— Ebrard, Godet. 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 186 

then by a process of development unfolded again 
to the consciousness of full divinity. The theory as- 
sumes different forms, some more extreme than others. 
According to one form, the divine Son renounced 
only the relative attributes; according to another, 
the absolute attributes also. Even on the latter 
view the divine nature or essence of the Son remains, 
as a sort of germ or potency which again unfolds. 
The Kenotists apply Philippians ii. 6-8 to the in- 
carnate state. The human nature of the God-man, 
having been invested according to the Lutheran Com- 
municatio Idiomatum with divine powers, at once re- 
nounced them, to recover them gradually, and to re- 
cover them completely in the state of Exaltation. 
How such a doctrine, in any form, can be reconciled 
with the divine Immutability, it is difficult to un- 
derstand. It professes to receive and start from the 
Christology of the ancient Church, but really contra- 
dicts it. An essential part of the ancient doctrine 
is that the Word in becoming Flesh did not lose or 
give up anything that he was, but in addition became 
something that he was not before. 1 Remaining by 

1 " The word became must not be so understood as to support 
the belief that the Word ceased to be what he was before ; and 
the word flesh must not be taken to exclude the rational soul of 
man. The clear apprehension of the meaning of the phrase, 
so far as we can apprehend it, lies in the recognition of the 
unity of the Lord's Person before and after the Incarnation. 
His Personality is divine. But at the same time we must 
affirm that his humanity is real and complete. He, remaining 
the same Person as before, did not simply assume humanity as 
something which could be laid aside; he became flesh. He did 
not simply become 'a man:' he became 'man.' The mode of 
the Lord's existence on earth was truly human, and subject to 
all the conditions of human existence; but he never ceased to 
be God": Westcott in Speaker, p. 10. 



186 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

necessity of nature all that he was before, he as- 
sumed a perfect human nature into union with him- 
self. According to Kenotisni, the divine Son un- 
derwent a mighty change, he ceased for a time to be 
what he had been from all eternity, the divine was 
lost in the human and then emerged again. It seems 
to be Eutychianism reversed. Kenotists say that 
the alternative of their theory is Nestorianism, that 
unity of Person is otherwise unattainable. We can 
only reply, that in that case the whole Church up to 
recent days was Nestorian without knowing it. 1 

IV. THE TWO STATES OF THE INCARNATION. 
§ 167, The State of Humiliation. 

The state of Humiliation extends from the Mirac- 
ulous Conception and Birth to the death of Christ 
inclusive. The Incarnation itself is not included in 
this state, for it continues still in the state of Exal- 
tation. The Humiliation, strictly speaking, includes 
all those acts and states of Christ's life which are 
extra to the idea of Incarnation, such as the Concep- 
tion and Birth, the Circumcision, Baptism, Fasting, 
Temptation, Sinless Infirmity, Death, and Burial. 
The Incarnation might have taken place, Christ 
might have been perfect man, apart from these cir- 
cumstances. 

\ 168. The State of Exaltation. 

The state of Exaltation begins with the Resurrec- 

a A good exposition and criticism may be seen in Bruce, Hu- 
miliation of Christ, Lect. iv. Dr. Bruce does not think the di- 
vine Immutability an inseparable barrier to the theory. The 
student must judge for himself. Let him also ask what the ef- 
fect of the theory is on the divine Trinity. 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 187 

tion ? is continued in the Ascension, and completed 
in the Session at God's right hand. Some make it 
begin earlier, with the descent of Christ's Spirit into 
Hades. But this view depends on a doubtful inter- 
pretation of a difficult text, 1 Peter iii. 19. Lutheran 
and Catholic divines all make the passage refer to 
such a descent, though they are not agreed as to 
the meaning and purposes of the descent. There 
are, however, other interpretations, which have on 
their side an equally eminent series of expositors. 
A strongly disputed interpretation is too slender a 
basis on which to found doctrine. 1 

§ 169. Resurrection, Ascension, Session. 

The Resurrection is the first stage of the Exalta- 
tion. It is God's reversal of the world's judgment 
passed on Christ in the crucifixion. Christ died on 
the assertion that he was the Son of God, Matthew 
xxvi. 63. The Father in raising him from the dead 
confirms the assertion, Romans i. 4. 2 The Resur- 
rection is also a divine seal on Christ's work, Romans 
iv. 25, viii. 34. In it the Prophet is glorified. 3 

The Ascension glorifies the High Priest, who now 
enters the eternal Holy Place, Hebrews iv. 14, ix. 25. 
He ascends to intercede and bless. 

The Session is the glorification of the King. He 
now assumes the mediatorial crown and scepter, 
which he will continue to bear till the consummation 
of all things, 1 Corinthians xv. 28. His attitude is 

1 See Dr. Salmond in Schaff's Commentary, vol. iv. 215. 
2 "Justified in the spirit," 1 Tim. iii. 16; "Convince of right- 
eousness," John xvi. 8, 10. s Farindon, Sermons on Nativity, 
Resurrection, i. 31, ed. 1849. 



188 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

the sign of triumph past and the pledge of triumph 

to come. 

\ 170, Literature. 

Liddon's Bampton Lecture; Pope, Fernley Lect. 
on Person of Christ; Whitelaw, Divinity of Christ; 
Wardlaw, Socinian Controversy; Dorner, System of 
Christian Doctrine, iii. 145-373 ; Pye-Smith, Scripture 
Testimony to Messiah; Owen's two treatises, The 
Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ, and Med- 
itations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ (vol. 
i. of his works), are most noble; Bruce, Humiliation 
of Christ, Cunningham Lecture. 



CHAPTER IX. 

DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 

$171. Prophet, Priest, and King — § 172. The Ideal Prophet— $173. The 
Ideal Priest— $ 174. The Ideal King— $175. Atonement: Doctrine 
and Dogma— $ 176. Substitution— $ 177. Christ's Death a Sacri- 
fice— $178. Christ's Death a Propitiation— $179. Redemption— 
$180. Reconciliation— $181. Sacrifice for Sin— $ 182. Why No 
Universal Dogma— $183. Common Essentials— $ 184. The Divine 
Character— $185. The Just for the Unjust— $186. Cautious— $187. 
A Salutary Change— $188. Moral Force of Atonement— $189. 
Mediaeval Aberrations— $190. Theories Denying Godward Ef- 
fect— $191. Early Socinianism— $192. Bushnell's Theory— $193. 
The Mystical Theory— $ 194. Dr. Campbell's Vie^'— $ 195. F. W. 
Robertson's View— $196. Incarnation and Redemption Coinci- 
dent— $ 197. Back to the Fathers— $ 198. The Governmental The- 
ory— $199. General Points— $200. Literature— $201. Calvinism 
and arminianism— $ 202. augustinian predestination. 

\ 171. Prophet, Priest, and King. 
The constitution of Christ's Person gives value to 
his Work. It is significant that, when Christ's work 
is spoken of, our thoughts fix at once on this part of 
it. This is his work preeminently, but not the whole 
of it. In the full sense his work embraces every- 
thing he does in his threefold office of Prophet, 
Priest, and King. These Old Testament offices and 
orders found their fulfillment in Christ, in whom 
they all meet, and meet perfectly. He is the ideal 
Prophet, Priest, and King. His title of Messiah re- 
fers to all three mediatorial offices. The Atonement 
is simply his work as Priest, but it is central, funda- 
mental to the rest. 

1 172. The Ideal Prophet. 
He is the Ideal Prophet. The old prophets were 
inspired teachers. Thev owed their office, not to 

(189) 



190 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

right of birth, but to a direct divine call. They were 
specially chosen for and called to their work, thus 
foreshadowing the Christian ministry. Their func- 
tion was moral and religious teaching. Moses, Sam- 
uel, Elijah, Isaiah, were simply the chief leaders of 
a "goodly fellowship," Christ is greater than Mo- 
ses, not merely a guide in the Way. but himself the 
Way, the Truth, the Life, the Light of the World. 
He speaks of himself and in his own name. 

1 173. The Ideal Priest. 

He is not only Priest but Sacrifice, and perfect in 
both capacities. "He offered himself." He is thus 
at once the culmination of the priestly order, and of 
the sacrifices for sin which they offered. In one ca- 
pacity he is our representative, in the other our sub- 
stitute. 1 

\ 174. The Ideal King. 

Ancient prediction from its very first utterance 
looked forward to a regal conqueror; and, as time 
went on, the person, empire, and triumphs of the 
King became clearer and clearer. David's and Dan- 
iel's predictions especially fed the Jewish expecta- 
tions of a coming King. But the expectations took 
a wrong color. They were intensely, perhaps ex- 
clusively, secular. Christ is a King and has a king- 
dom, but "not of this world." His authority is 
founded on free consent. His empire is in and over 
human hearts. We need not wonder at the mistake 
of the Jews, for Christians have repeated it. The 
persecutions of the Eoman Church, and the attempts 
made by Reformers like Calvin to enforce morality 

iPope, Comp. ii. 216-248. 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 191 

by means of the civil power, proceed on the same 
mistaken views. Christ's ideal kingdom of heaven 
has yet to be realized. 1 

\ 175. Atonement : Doctrine and Dogma. 

We must carefully distinguish between the doe- 
trine and the dogma of Atonement, or between 
fact and theory. The doctrine or fact, taught in 
Scripture, is matter of universal Christian belief. 
There is no Church that does not take its stand on 
the position that Christ's death is the meritorious 
ground of human salvation, which is the core of the 
Atonement. Apart from the necessity of atonement, 
it would be hard to justify the incarnation and suf- 
fering of the Eternal Son. But as to the theory or 
dogma there is considerable diversity of view. Even 
here, however, there is more substantial agreement 
than is sometimes thought. 2 

gl76. Substitution, 

It is sometimes questioned whether the vital idea 

1 Dorner on " Three Offices," System of Christian Doctrine, 
iii. 381 ; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, p. 295. 2 " The doc- 
trine of redemption and atonement lay outside the dogma- 
forming work of the ancient Church. Just as little as the doc- 
trine of the appropriation of salvation by faith did it become 
the subject of ecclesiastical discussion and action; hence both 
sides of Christ's work found no confessional expression in an- 
cient times. Not that the thing itself was absent from the 
Church's faith. Redemption and atonement through Christ 
rather found its vital center, the basis of the whole of Chris- 
tianity and the postulate of all other dogmas": Thomasius, 
Christ's Person and Work, 3d Part, p. 169. No heresy arose 
in this field to compel the Church to define and formulate its 
faith, as was the case with the doctrine of Christ's Person. 



192 DOCTKINES OF REDEMPTION. 

of the vicarious purpose of Christ's death belongs 
to the doctrine or to the dogma, i. e. } whether it is 
got from Scripture or is supplied by human thought. 
We wonder at the doubt, for the fact is both ex- 
pressed and implied in Scripture. Christ himself 
says, "The Son of Man came ... to give his 
life a ransom for many" (SotWi ttjv t/^V avrov Xvrpov 
olvtl ttoA/W), Matthew xx. 28. Substitution is here 
expressed twice over, in the " ransom" and the 
"for" = instead of. 1 St. Paul's language is so simi- 
lar as to suggest quotation, "who gave himself a ran- 
som for all" (6 Sous Zclvtov avriXvrpov virep wavTCDv), 

1 Timothy ii. 6. The avri is here combined with the 
noun, and the more common virip is put in its place. 
The latter preposition is the one most frequently 
used in the New Testament to express the bearing 
of Christ's death on us, and is the most suitable as 
implying benefit, advantage. 2 

The idea of substitution is implied in such pas- 
sages as Eomans v. 6-8; 2 Corinthians v. 14, 15, 21; 
Galatians iii. 13; 1 Peter iii. 18; John x. 15; Titus ii. 
14; Hebrews ii. 9. Christ's conduct in dying for us 
is compared to that of one dying for a good man. It 
is most natural to suppose that the thought in the 
latter case is that of one dying instead, in the place, 
of a good man. In the other passages there is no 
doubt respecting the meaning. In 2 Corinthians v. 
14, the inference, " therefore all died," only holds 
good, if "one died for all" by dying instead of all 
(comp. Philemon 13; 2 Corinthians v. 20; 1 Corinthi- 

1 See also John x. 11. 2 See Tischendorf 's note in Crawford, 
Doctrine of Atonement, p. 495. 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 193 

ans i. 13. 1 The idea is also implied when it is said 
that Christ bore our sins, Hebrews ix. 28; 1 Peter 
ii. 24; 1 John iii. 5 (John i. 29). The phrase "To 
bear sin" is a Jewish one with a fixed meaning. 2 
See Leviticus x. 17, xix. 8, xxii. 9, xxiv. 15, 16; Eze- 
kiel xviii. 20. When transferred to Christ by Jew- 
ish writers, it must have the same meaning. But 
whose sin can Christ bear except the sin of others? 
Bushnell tries to explain away bearing sin as sym- 
pathy for the sinner, and refers to Christ being said 
to bear our sicknesses, Matthew viii. 17. But, in 
addition to the answer just given, according to St. 
Peter Christ bore our sin "on the tree." Besides, he 
showed sympathy with sickness by removing it. 
Respecting the Atonement; we have to consider the 
Doctrine, the Theory, and Modern divergent theo- 
ries. 

I. DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE. 

In itself, Christ's death is a Sacrifice; in its ef- 
fects, it is a Propitiation, Redemption, and Recon- 
ciliation or Atonement. 

\ V77. Christ's Death a Sacrifice. 

In itself, in its nature or essence, it is a Sacrifice. 
This is the subject of elaborate argument in the 

x "It is, of course, certain that v~ep in itself, and also in the 
passages cited, is not = avri] but it can only be meant in this 
sense": Thomasius, Christ's Person, etc., 3d Part, p. 101. See 
Weiss, Bibl. Theol. N. T. i. 232, on 1 Pet. iii. 18: " The contrast 
which is made so prominent between the righteous and the 
unrighteous necessarily gives the idea, that the suffering which 
was endured in behalf of these ought to have been endured by 
the unrighteous themselves." See also Schmid, Bibl. Theol. N. 
T. p. 391, and Meyer on Gal. iii. 13. 2 Crawford, Scripture Doc- 
trine of Atonement, p. 33. 
13 



194 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

Epistle to the Hebrews. The description of Christ's 
divine glory in the first chapters is merely an intro- 
duction to the description of his priestly work. The 
subject is presented in the form of a parallel and 
contrast to the Jewish priests and sacrifices, w 7 hich 
are represented as divinely intended types of Christ; 
see especially chapters ix. and x. The Jewish sac- 
rifices needed constant repetition, Christ's one of- 
fering is sufficient; their merit was by imputation, 
his is intrinsic; they are temporary, his sacrifice is 
forever. Express sacrificial terms are applied to 
Christ, ix. 14, 28. 1 To suppose that the language is 
a mere accommodation to Jewish ideas, and is to be 
taken in some improper or figurative sense, is to re- 
duce a whole book of Scripture to mere word-play. 2 
"Unless we are to treat the Epistle to the Hebrews 
as a portion of Scripture possessing no permanent 
value to the Church as a source of instruction in 
Christian truth, we must regard Christ's priesthood 
as a great reality, as the reality, whereof the legal 
priesthood was but a rude shadow, not even an ex- 
act image." 3 If, then, the parallel is to hold good, 
Christ's sacrifice means whatever the Jewish sacri- 
fices meant; and on this point doubt is impossible. 
Leviticus xvii. 11 defines the purpose of sacrifice in 
unmistakable terms; it is to make atonement or expi- 
ation. 4 Maurice's teaching, that sacrifices were noth- 

1 Owen, xii. 425. 2 " They say, it is true Christ was a priest; 
but only he was a metaphorical one. He offered sacrifice ; but 
it was a metaphorical one. He redeemed us; but with a meta- 
phorical redemption. And so we are justified thereon; but 
with a metaphorical justification. And so, for aught I know, 
they are like to be saved with a metaphorical salvation": Owen, 
ii. 430. 3 Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, Lect. vi. 4 See also Lev. 
i. 4, iy, 20, 2% y, 16, 



DOCTBINE OF ATONEMENT. 195 

ing but a symbol of the offerer's self-devotion, finds 
no support in the Old Testament. On this supposi- 
tion they had no reference to sin, but were simply 
pictorial ways of expressing religious truth or senti- 
ment. The expiatory phraseology and ideas con 
nected with the sin-offering would then be inexplica- 
ble. Besides, to suppose that the sole purpose of 
the vast sacrificial system of the Jews was to sym- 
bolize spiritual truth, is to suppose an immense ex- 
penditure of means for a comparatively small end. 

Again, the uniform language of the New Testa- 
ment respecting the effect of Christ's death is only 
explicable on the supposition of its sacrificial nature. 
How is the emphasis so constantly placed on Christ's 
blood to be explained save on the ground that it was 
shed sacrificially? See Hebrews ix. 12, etc.; Ro- 
mans iii. 25; Ephesians i. 7; 1 Peter i. 2, 19; 1 John i. 
5, 6, 7, 8. Christ says, "This is my blood, which is 
shed for the remission of sins," Matthew xxvi. 23. 
Unless Christ's blood is sacrificial, wiiat special con- 
nection is there between it and the remission of sins? 
We are " justified by his blood," "we were recon- 
ciled to God through the death of his Son," Romans 
v. 9, 10. The same question may be asked here. See 
also Luke xxii. 19, 20; John x. 11; Romans viii. 32; 
Galatians ii. 20; Ephesians v. 20; 1 Thessalonians v. 
9, 10; Titus ii. 14; Hebrews ii. 9; 1 John iii. 16. 1 

The efficacy of Christ's death is traced in Scrip- 
ture to Christ's divine dignity, 1 John i. 7; Hebrews 
ix. 14; to his holiness, 1 Peter i. 18, 19; Hebrews vii. 
26, 27; his love, Ephesians v. 2; the voluntariness 

1 Crawford, Scripture Doctr. of Atonement, p. 96; Dorner, 
Syst. Christian Doctr, iii, 411. 



196 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

of his suffering, John x. 17 ? 18. These are the requi- 
sites of a perfect, all-sufficient sacrifice. 

In its effects, Christ's sacrificial death is a Propi- 
tiation, Redemption, Reconciliation. 

\ 178, Christ's Death a Propitiation. 
Propitiation, of which God is the object, Romans 
iii. 25; 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10; Hebrews ii. 17 (Luke xviii. 
13); IXao-jjios, iAgutko/acu. The word " atonement/' as 
it occurs often in the Old Testament, corresponds to 
" propitiation," not to "reconciliation." 1 The He- 
brew word for "expiate, propitiate" OiDp), is invari- 
ably rendered in the Septuagint by some form of the 
words above given — a striking evidence that it is the 
Godward aspect of sacrifice that is the principal one. 
Propitiation is the appeasing of anger. Romans iii. 
25 is full of interest. However IXaarypios is con- 
strued, the sense is the same. Some expositors 
think that the adjective had hardened into a noun 
and become equivalent to " propitiatory" (n'HjbSXttie 
name for the mercy seat. God set forth Christ as a 
propitiatory, a mercy seat or means of propitiation. 
We see the interconnection of ideas again in 1|33> 

ransom. 2 

1 179. Kedemption. 

Redemption, of which man is the object, Colossians 
i. 14, etc., aTroXvTpaxrts. Generally some form of this 

1 See Trench, Syn. of N. T. p. 279. Trench supposes that 
" atonement " has changed its meaning. This seems doubtful. 
It would rather seem that the word has always had a double 
aspect. Its use by our translators in the 0. T. to represent 
propitiation, and in the N. T. to represent reconciliation, favors 
this view, and is against Trench. 2 Crawford, Scripture Doctr. 
of Atonement, p. 78. See Meyer on the passage. Dale, Atone- 
ment, p. 236. 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 197 

word is used; but the phraseology is varied by the 
use of the ordinary word for "buy, buy back," ayo- 
pd£eiv, 1 Corinthians vi. 20; Galatians iii. 13. It is 
true that redemption came to mean simple deliver- 
ance, without reference to the means by which it is 
effected. But it retains its proper force in the New 
Testament, as is shown by the fact that the price or 
ransom is often mentioned, 1 Peter i. 18; Matthew 
xx. 28. 1 He gave "himself," "his life." Christ 
bought us with this price, he did not buy salvation 
for us. Hence we are called a "people of posses- 
sion," Titus ii. 14; 1 Peter ii. 9. 2 

\ 180. Beconciliation, 

Reconciliation, of which God and man are the ob- 
jects, KOLTaWdoro-eiv, KaraWayq. It is true that the term 
is often used of the reconciling of one party, and in 
Scripture refers apparently to the reconciling of 
man only. 2 Corinthians v. 18-20; Romans v. 10; 
Colossians i. 21; Ephesians ii. 18. Still in its full 
sense the idea is a reciprocal one; and it would be 
hard to explain the use of the term, if only half the 
meaning were included. We can only get the true 
meaning of words from usage and the context. Rec- 
onciliation means the mutual laying aside of en- 

1 " Indeed, Moses is called /.vrpurfa Acts vii. 35, in reference 
to the metaphorical redemption of Israel ont of Egypt — a de- 
liverance by power and a strong arm ; but shall we say, because 
that word is used improperly in one place, where no price could 
be paid, where God plainly says it was not done by a price but 
by power, therefore it must be so used in those places where 
there is express mention of a price, both the matter of it and 
its formality as a price, and speaking not a word of doing it 
any other way but by the payment of a price? " Owen, xii. 
419; also the whole of ch. xxviii. 2 Crawford, as before, p. 605. 



198 DOCTKIftES OF REDEMPTION. 

mity. In God, of course, the enmity is judicial, not 
personal. 1 Tliat there is such enmity in him is im- 
plied in propitiation. The latter term, however, de- 
scribes only one side of the process, while reconcili- 
ation includes both. Matthew v. 24 and 1 Samuel 
xxix. 4 show that, while one side of the process is 
spoken of, the other is meant. "Be reconciled to thy 
brother" evidently means that the man addressed is 
to go and obtain his brother's forgiveness. See verse 
23, "there rememberest that thy brother hath aught 
against thee." There is much to suggest the same 
sense in Romans v. "Reconciled" in Romans v. 10 
must be partly equivalent to "justified" in verse 9, 
i. e., "justified" must be included in "reconciled." 2 
And what is justifying but God's laying aside his 
anger against us? So in verse 11 we are said to "re- 
ceive" reconciliation, an inappropriate phrase if it 
means only an act of our own. We are also said to 
be reconciled "through the death" of Christ, which 
again points to an objective act. On the other hand, 
it is quite possible that in the passages in 2 Corin- 
thians v., etc., the human side of the transaction is 
meant. 3 In order that God's reconciliation, accom- 

1 Owen distinguishes between the " real enmity on our part 
against God" and the "law enmity on the part of God against 
us," one being " physical," the other " legal or moral," Works, 
xii. 414. On the whole idea of reconciliation, see Owen, ch. 
xxix. "It is not said anywhere expressly that God is recon- 
ciled to us, but that we are reconciled to God ; and the sole rea- 
son thereof is, because he is the party offended, and we are the 
parties offending. Now, the party offending is always said to be 
reconciled to the party offended, and not on the contrary. So 
Matt. v. 23, 24": p. 535. Crawford, pp. 67, 427, 448. 2 Owen, 
xii. 415. s Yet in 2 Cor. v. 19 the objective reconciliation is 
pointed at, " not imputing their trespasses." 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 199 

plished in the propitiation of the cross, may take ef- 
fect on us, our enmity to God must be laid aside, in 
purpose at least; and when this is done, and we re- 
ceive the reconciliation (i. e., "are justified by his 
blood"), "the carnal mind," which "is enmity against 
God," gives place to the spiritual mind, w T hich is 
"life and peace." Yet another explanation of the 
phraseology of Scripture is possible. God is already 
propitiated, reconciled by the death of Christ. All 
that is needed to make the benefits of this propitia- 
tion ours, and to complete the work, is our humble 
submission to God's mercy. Perhaps this is the ex- 
planation of the fact that the human reconciliation 
is specially referred to in St. Paul's epistles as the 
only part of the work of salvation still to be done. 1 

II. DOGMA OF ATONEMENT, 
g 181. Sacrifice for Sin, 

The principal fact to be accounted for in any the- 
ory is that Christ's death is a sacrifice for sin; the 
other aspects of his death, representing its effects, 

1 See Trench on this group of words, Synonyms of N. T/p. 
276. "The Christian KaraX?.ay?j has two sides. It is first a 
reconciliation, ' qua Deus nos sibi reconciliavit,' laid aside his 
holy anger against our sins, and received us into favor — a recon- 
ciliation effected for us once for all by Christ upon his cross ; so 
2 Cor. v. 18. 19; Bom. v. 10, where Kara/AcaecBai is a pure pas- 
sive, *ab eo in gratiam recipi apud quern in odio fueras.' But 
Karal7.ayr] is secondly and subordinately the reconciliation, ' qua 
nos Deo reconciliamus,' the daily deposition, under the opera- 
tion of the Holy Spirit, of the enmity of the old man toward 
God. In this passive middle sense naralAoceodaL is used, 2 Cor. 
v. 20, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 11. All attempts to make this the primary 
meaning of the word, being indeed the secondary, rest not on 
unprejudiced exegesis, but on a foregone determination to get 
rid of the reality of God's anger against sin": p. 279. Craw- 
ford, as before, p. 65. 



200 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

follow as matter of course. If, then, according to 
Scripture, Christ's death is a sacrifice to God for 
man's sin, the question at once arises, What was 
there in God to make such a sacrifice necessary? 
What can it be but justice? In this way the idea of 
satisfaction has arisen. 1 Add to the idea of sacri- 
fice that of vicariousness, also found in Scripture, 
and the conclusion is placed beyond doubt. What 
other rationale is possible of the statement that 
Christ's death is a vicarious sacrifice for sin? The 
defect of all other theories, presently to be noticed, 
is that they leave these facts unexplained. Essen- 
tially they resolve themselves into representations 
of Christ's death as an act of self-sacrificing love, 
which is something altogether different from a sac- 
rifice for sin. The latter aspect, the fundamental 
one in Scripture, is thus ignored or denied, as well 
as the element of vicariousness. If Christ's death 
is mere self-sacrifice, it may be for us; but how can 
it be in our room and stead? The orthodox view 
does full justice to the self-sacrifice and love shown 
in Christ's death for us. Christ shows such love in 
his willingness to die for us. But why does he die 
for us? Not as a mere example of self-sacrifice. 
This can never be the sole or principal end, or in- 
deed the proper end, of any action. It is a mere 
incident of something else. No one would throw 7 
himself into the sea as an example of self-sacrifice. 
The unselfish spirit must be shown in serving some 
practical end. What is the practical end in Christ's 
death? 2 To make expiation for sin, says Scripture. 

1 Blunt, Diet Theol. "Satisfaction," a good article. 2 " Self- 
sacrifice for its own sake is no religious act at all ": F. W. Eob- 
ertson, Sermons, iii. 102. 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 201 

The other theories have no answer, or an inadequate 
one. The Father showed his love in the surrender 
of his Son. But what did he show in receiving the 
sacrifice of Christ's death? As loving and merciful, 
God provides and bestows the sacrifice which he 
owned but could not give; as just, he required and 
received it. We thus see that the ideas of strict sac- 
rifice and vicariousness on the one hand, and of jus- 
tice and satisfaction on the other, are correlative, 
and stand or fall together. When the first two are 
denied, the others must be got rid of. On this 
account divine justice is sometimes resolved into 
love, sometimes explained as an arbitrary act of 
will or a mere anthropomorphism. It is denied 
a place among the essential perfections of God. 
Socinus early said: "If we could but get rid of 
this justice, even if we had no proof, the fiction of 
Christ's satisfaction would be thoroughly exposed 
and would vanish. m Ritschl joins hands with So- 
cinus on this point. Man's consciousness of the dis- 
tinctness of justice and love in himself, and of their 
equal importance, will always be an invincible se- 
curity for the doctrine of atonement. 

\ 182. Why No Universal Dogma. 
It may seem strange at first sight that there 
should be no universally received dogma of the atone- 
ment, corresponding to the dogma of Christ's Person 
found in the Mcene and Athanasian Creeds. But 
the explanation is not far to seek. The rise of error 
and controversy has invariably been the occasion of 
the formal definition of doctrine. Such error and 
controversy arose respecting the nature of Christ's 
Person, but not respecting the Atonement. One sub- 

1 Shedd, Christian Doctrine, ii. 376. 



202 






I afforded more room for : ation of cra- 

ft brains than the other. ~"_r . _ r r: : : 

one in teaching the dependence : "__•.".■_;.-_ - .'.-. ;..:: ; :. 
on Christ - les th SI I to teach this wa - :o bieak 
with Christianity completely, because atonemei is 
the " _:.-7ian messs _r i : the « urld. 

Thus the absence ; f defined doctrine is the effect and 
th e proof >f the Choi : h - mu Dimity on the subject. 
183. Common "tfetJi^'iiitialgL 
TLr essentia Is : the theory have been the com- 
mon property of the Church in all a gjes, 1 nt there has 
been growth as well as variety in expression. The 
Apostolic F;:LtL- as migli: - expected r : ;:":- 
farther thai the '-tTTt: >f B ciptore. 1 All the g^eat 
7 r - tec guise the sal : mtionary character of 
Christ - work. The rery teem ss Hs£a :t; mi" oceora 
in Hilary and Ambi »se. Thus Anselm- -1109), in 
formulating his theory of satisra crier; did lirr.e nere 
than combine and systematize the thoughts of Ms 
prede 3ess »fb But in him the -: ris: : ::. : z is rc-eh-: 

- >; " - honor than to h" ^ : :- Sin is a grea. 

infringement : : 3 ■: -d's honor; reparation is dne; for- 
giveness without it would be unbecoming; man can- 
not make such reparation for himself if can only be 
made for him bx the 3-od-man- — s" ch are The ie-" di-ir 



1 Pope, Comp. ii. '-" SheiH 5.207,305 B Tnhi 

Homo? Lnthari: ~ :.; " I,: ~ -' ^'heic i 
tianDoctri I" The debt was so gieat tha 

God could pay it, and a :: '.- ' " a a a :■— es a 
must pay it who is God and ms: _r_a«-aa 
of a debt is not, of course, meant to be a complete 
the nature of sin, the" _•'.-. ' ;;e ; : : ; : " - a : - 'aaae a r 
making a metaphor the bass : : absurd inferaieeB. 

- ::a;a.rlson is the oHir : - : a if the iebfti 
restitatioii, an unfortunate dmimsfcance for the obji 



:: i r e 



DOCTRINE Otf ATONEMENT. 203 

thoughts which have been substantially accepted 
by all Christendom as part at least of a complete 
theory. Aquinas repeats Anselnrs teaching. Both 
Eoman and Protestant creeds continue the tradition. 
Council of Trent, vi. 7, says: " Christ made satisfac- 
tion to God the Father for us." Augsburg Confes- 
sion, p. 10: "By his own death he made satisfaction 
for our sins." Conf. Helv. ii. 15: "Christ assumed 
and took away the sins of the world, and made satis- 
faction to God's justice." Westminster Confession, 
viii. 5 : "The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and 
sacrifice of himself, hath fully satisfied the justice of 
Lis Father." The Communion Office of the English 
[and Methodist] Church says that Christ made on 
the cross "a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, 
oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole 
world." Art. xxxi. [Art. xx. of our Twenty-five] 
says: "The offering of Christ once made is the per- 
fect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for 
all the sins of the whole world, both original and 
actual." 

I 184. The Divine Character. 

It is objected that the doctrine supposes God to be 
inexorably just, implacable, and only moved to mer- 
cy by the sacrifice of his Son. But is he not just? 
Is this a defect? Would not the absence of the most 
perfect justice be a defect? Is he not angry at sin, 
a Sovereign as well as a Father? According to 

maintain that no restitution is due from the sinner or required 
by God. " Sin is not properly a debt, for then it might be paid 
in kind, by sin itself; but is called so, only because it binds 
over the sinner to punishment, which is the satisfaction to be 
made for that which is properly a transgression, and improp- 
erly only a debt ": Owen, ii. 431. Crawford, pp. 429, 451. 



m 



- lm> : : _.__ _n_ r:o>\ 



be compatible with love. The obje< 

-- '---* - ~- ~ ~-y ignore one side o: 

- 1 '- Tbe d«: .::::: o: ,:.: r Lri: 

*■ To sap Thai abo p-a:a:ose o: a:-: 

— -- daob is :■: re-, erse abe 

- -~ — -de — e: bda* '.' abe aaonemena: c 

: T- : - — Se de is laeiaianl be adv-as it. 

---■ - ^ " a a — eroy provide*, abe *aor:rb>; 

Hebrews ii, .; . ••>: T - r r ;e~ ns "Link o: 

"" ---- r ~ab_ >od a; grana as a sad v a a 

~a~ - aa~ad:a_ to :;rs::~, baa ai~~a~s ; 

~'-~r whoaa 'rod binasela ™as pleased i- 

:aase -a Li- aaeaa nor-:." be desired :a 

If ia bo said, : _ a in, abaa abas is to make « 

'■--'■ band and receive ~:ali abe oaner. ■ 

:~ ':'. "a:: 10 a :a so- abo ob;ecaio-n. > 

die a: :ia as: :a is naade a: a as 1\t abe 

aid: :»aber : :; a - , -'bra ~e bad n 

: - : ar : --_ a : adv-. abo ai does o: bdod's i 

od to abe snpp:~ 






o '.aa.r.- 
J moral 
as tuab 
it is to 

God is 



iiL16; 

as pie- 



aiia abe 



bonnd- 



. _ T , . 



185, The Ju.s-t for the Ui 



Tbe aax oa 
:baaa :aor o: ' 
a I on ones 

iaaaaa>iab :a a: 
saaioain^r. — ia' 
a\:re re : Miain 
iaa Is :ai~aia 
rmthians v . a: 
t: on:: lay of sin 



p^-rL 



an is abe leaai or nena! 

as aa'a-a impossil: ! -a 
o anion is an a do a a 1 an-." - 
:■: oaaoaa. Tbaa Sarip- 
:aoa in Cbrisa's -aa-a 
ilatians Hi. 18; 2 Co- 
st did die; death is the 
a 0: — a : so da ~bon 



DOCTRINE OE ATONEMENT. 205 

was Christ's death the penalty? In any case, the in- 
nocent suffers. Here is the injustice, if there is any. 
The addition of the reason "for the guilty" neither 
makes nor aggravates injustice. On the contrary, 
it helps to relieve any appearance of it by assigning 
an adequate moral purpose. "The just suffered" 
in any case. If we refuse to say "for the unjust/' 
we refuse to add the consideration which removes 
the impression of inequity. Every day we see the 
innocent inherit the consequences of others' wrong- 
doing. It is true the suffering is not penalty to 
them; they suffer involuntarily; they suffer with the 
guilty, not for them, for the guilty are not exempted 
from suffering. And yet we believe that the gov- 
ernment of God which permits this is just. Why 
do we believe this? Because men are treated, not 
individually, but as members of a race, with com- 
mon corporate responsibilities. How then can it 
be wrong for that to be suffered voluntarily which 
it is right to suffer involuntarily? How can it be 
unjust to suffer for a worthy purpose, with benefit to 
others, when it is just to suffer without benefit to 
others? What is a justification in one case is a jus- 
tification in the other. The constitution of the world 
is not a perfect analogy to the fact of atonement, but 
it is a preparation for it. Atonement simply carries 
the principle a step farther and higher. Objectors 
seem here to forget their favorite attribute of love. 
Here they limit its omnipotence, saying in effect, 
"You may sympathize with the sinful and unfortu- 
nate, but you must not carry your sympathy so far 
as to assume their obligations at the bar of justice." 
This is precisely what love would desire to do, sup- 
posing it to be possible. And how can it be impos- 



206 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

sible to assume penalty, apart from guilt? If God's 
love cannot do so, it is weaker than human love. 
Dr. Bruce says: " Looking at this question from our 
peculiar point of view, that of Christ's voluntary hu- 
miliation, I remark, that if descent into a legal stand- 
ing of a sinner were at all possible, Christ would 
gladly make the descent. It was his mind, his bent, 
his mood, if I may so speak, to go down till he had 
reached the utmost limits of possibility. So minded, 
he would be predisposed to find the imputation of 
men's sin to himself, to the intent of his bearing their 
penalty, within these limits." 1 The act of Christ, in 
assuming the penalty of man's sin, is quite within 
the range of divine love, and is its grandest manifes- 
tation. 2 

\ 186. Cautions. 

Care is necessary in the use of such phrases as 
Christ "bearing our punishment, suffering God's 
wrath." They are not meant in the sense they bear 
in reference to us, nor do we think that they were 
ever used by the thoughtful in such a sense. Some 
latitude is permissible in the language of devotion, 
as in that of poetry. Dr. Magee objects to the word 
"punishment" in this connection, and substitutes 
"judicial infliction." This is really all that is meant 
in the other phrases. Dr. Crawford (p. 191) observes 
that Magee's own words "concede all that those who 
adopt the expression are disposed to contend for." 
The term "penal" is used of Christ's suffering, not 
in the sense of "suffering inflicted on an offender on 
account of sin," but of "suffering inflicted judicially, 

1 Humiliation of Christ, Lect. vi. 2 Owen, xii. chs. xxiii.-xxvi. 
Dorner has some noble passages on Substitution and Satisfac- 
tion, Syst, Christ, Doctr, iv. 79-124. 



DOCTBINE OP ATONEMENT. 207 

or in the execution of the provisions of law, on ac- 
count of sin." Mr. Oxenhani, in his interesting but 
somewhat discursive work, The Catholic Doctrine of 
the Atonement, makes the most of some extreme 
statements of Reformation divines, who speak of 
Christ as bearing "vicarious punishment," and suf- 
fering the same wrath and torment as the lost. He 
forgets that these are opinions of individuals, not of 
Churches. He further prejudices the question by 
bringing it into forced connection with predestina- 
rianism and extreme views of the extent of original 
sin. These are the grounds of his opinion that the 
teaching of the Reformation "has served first to 
distort, and then to alienate, the moral and religious 
convictions of a large section of Christendom" (p. 
183). He says that "the dominant idea" with Cath- 
olic waiters "is that of Sacrifice, which is a more 
comprehensive one than that of satisfaction only." 
Sacrifice, of course, is the Scripture idea. Satisfac- 
tion is a step toward the explanation of sacrifice. 
Substantially the theory of all Churches, so far as 
they have one, is the same. But Churches ought not 1 
to be held responsible for all the opinions of individ- 
ual writers, to whom on minor points a certain lati- 
tude is allowable. 

1 187. A Salutary Change. 

A great change for the better has come over the- 
ology, in applying moral instead of material meas- 
urements to the value of Christ's sufferings. We 
hear less than formerly of these being equivalent in 
amount to all the penal suffering due to all sinners. 
That they could not be the same in kind is self-evi- 
dent. Whether such commercial and mathematical 



208 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

estimates were ever carried as far as is sometimes 
represented by objectors, is doubtful, although some 
of the statements referred to above are startlingly 
material. On such views, it is hard to see what room 
is left for moral conditions. The tendency now is to 
dwell rather on the moral elements which gave aton- 
ing efficacy to Christ's sufferings — the person of the 
sufferer, the divine appointment, the love they ex- 
press, the purpose they aim at. Dr. Bruce will only 
say, " Christ suffered all that it was possible for a 
holy being to suffer in the way of penalty." 1 

? 188, Moral Force of Atonement. 

Let it be observed that we are speaking here of 
the features which gave Christ's death value as a 
sacrifice for sin. Its other aspect as a gift of divine 
love to man is altogether different. Here another set 
of influences begins to work, scarcely less important. 
The appeal which Christ's death* makes under this as- 
pect to gratitude, the insight it gives into God's char- 
acter, the example it supplies of self-sacrifice, are 
full of moral force of the highest and purest kind. 
It is a mistake to make these things all, to find in 
them the essence of the atonement; their place is, 
after all, but secondary. Still their value is inesti- 
mable. They will be considered afterwards. We 
only note here that they are perfectly compatible 
with the sacrificial character of Christ's death. 

\ 189. Mediaeval Aberrations, 

The germs of modern aberrations appear as early 
as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Duns Sco- 
tus made atonement only relatively necessary, and 

1 See Bruce ? as before, Lect. vi. pp. 339, 341, 347. 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 209 

ascribed the value of Christ's sacrifice to the di- 
vine will. His theory bears the name of acceptila- 
tio. 1 The question as to whether the necessity of the 
atonement is absolute or conditional has called forth 
different opinions. The majority of voices, however, 
support an absolute necessity, grounded in God's es- 
sential justice. Abelard makes the manifestation of 
love the sole purpose of Christ's work. God is al- 
ready reconciled. Christ lived and died to declare 
this fact, and so to win sinners back to God. All 
the effect of Christ's work is on man, not on God. 

A strange fancy existing in early ages was to the 
effect that the ransom in the atonement was paid to 
Satan. To say, as Eaur and others do, that the 
whole theory of atonement grew out of this fancy, is 
a great exaggeration. The only writer in whose case 
it seems to form a complete theory is Gregory of 
Xyssa (f395). He thought that Satan had acquired 
certain rights over man, as a master over slaves or a 
conqueror over captives, and these rights must not 
be extinguished by force, but satisfied by moral 
means. Unaware of Christ's divinity, Satan agrees 
to accept Christ's human soul in exchange, hoping 
to gain by so doing. But directly the divine comes 
into the region of sin and death, the power of sin 
and death is shattered. Thus Satan is really de- 
ceived, guile is met by superior guile. It is merely 
said that he deserves it. This theory in its unquali- 
fied and most revolting form is only held by Gregory 
of Nyssa. In the case of others, like Iren^eus, 2 Ori- 
gen, Theodoret, Augustine, Leo the Great, it is either 

1 " In Roman law an acquittance from obligation by word of 
mouth, without real payment": Pope ii. 306, 313; Shedd, ii. 
347. 2 See § 153, p. 174. 
14 



210 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

shorn of some of its most objectionable features, or 
it is held along with the ideas of propitiation and vi- 
carious sacrifice offered to God, and redemption from 
sin and death, these ideas not being harmonized. 
Thus Iremeus acknowledges no right of Satan, say- 
ing, " in juste dominatur nobis/' "injuste hominem 
captivum duxerat ininiicus." He makes Christ con- 
quer Satan in the wilderness. Baur applies Ire- 
naeus's words, secundum suadelam, "by persuasion," 
to Satan ; but they apply to man. Even Gregory the 
Great (f60-4), who repeats his namesake's offensive 
notions, adds the idea of sacrifice to God. The mis- 
take underlying the theory is that death is entirely 
in Satan's power. It was not regarded as a divine 
penalty. Great theologians like Athanasius and 
Hilary, not to mention Cyril of Alexandria and Greg- 
ory Xazianzen, know nothing of the theory. In fact, 
they anticipate the line of thought taken by ortho- 
dox teaching. Anselm gave the deathblow to the 
error. 1 

III. OTHER DIVERGENT THEORIES. 

1 190. Theories Denying Godward Effect. 

First comes a group of theories, different in detail 
but substantially one, which only take into account 
the effect of Christ's work on man, ignoring and de- 

1 "Was it the law of Satan we had transgressed ? Was he 
the judge that cast us into prison? was it he to whom we were 
indebted? was it ever heard that the price of redemption was 
paid to the jailer? Whether any of the ancients said so or no, 
I shall not now trouble myself to inquire, or in what sense they 
said it; the thing in itself is ridiculous and blasphemous": 
Owen, xii. 519; Shedd, Hist. Christian Doctr. ii. 245; Pope, 
Comp. ii. 300; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, Part 3, 
Abth. i. p. 184, etc. 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 211 

nying the Godward aspect altogether. They all err, 
not in what they affirm, but in what they exclude. 
Each one, wiiile more or less expressing a scriptural 
truth, goes far toward turning the truth into error, 
by making it the whole truth, and especially by sub- 
stituting what is secondary and incidental for what 
is primary and essential. They all, however, agree 
in rejecting the sacrificial idea entirely. Substitu- 
tion, penalty, expiation, satisfaction, they will not 
hear of. The problem with them is to explain all 
that Scripture says about Christ's death, without 
the aid of these ideas. They are also alike in this, 
that they leave merely a difference of degree be- 
tween Christ and other benefactors. Christ only 
did more perfectly what good men are constantly do- 
ing for their fellows. He is the greatest of all teach- 
ers, examples, benefactors, but only the greatest. 
He holds no unique position, renders no unique 
service. We confidently ask whether this is the 
position assigned to Christ in Scripture. According 
to Scripture, is our relation to Christ in the matter 
of salvation of the same kind as to Paul, Augustine, 
s 'k Kempis, F6nelon? Another common defect in 
these theories is that they fail to explain the close 
connection which Scripture declares to exist be- 
tween our salvation and Christ's death (Romans v. 
9, 10; Ephesians i. 7). How can we be saved by his 
death, unless his death has some unique character? 
On any other supposition, the death takes its place 
among the incidents of Christ's history; his teaching 
and example are equally effective factors in human 
redemption. This point furnishes a decisive test of 
all theories on this subject. It may, indeed, be said 
that the death is mentioned as the principal part, or 



212 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

the seal, of Christ's work. This might be a suffi- 
cient explanation of an incidental allusion, but not 
of a continuous, definite strain of teaching. If the 
universal Church has erred in making Christ's sac- 
rificial death the ground of salvation, Scripture is 
responsible for the error. The following theories 
do not always exist apart, but often run into each 

other. 1 

$ 191. Early Socinianism. 

Early Socinianism placed the Prophet in Christ 
above the Priest, if it did not, indeed, entirely merge 
the second in the first. We are saved solely by be- 
lieving Christ's teaching and following his example. 
His death attests his truthfulness and fidelity, and 
so is simply that of a martyr. On this view it is 
difficult to explain Christ's distress and anguish in 
presence of the cross; many of the servants have 
shown greater fortitude than the Master. Early 
Socinianism took a far higher view of Christ than 
modern Unitarianism. 2 While making him a mere 
man, it held fast to his Eesurrection and Ascension. 
As a reward for his extraordinary merit, he was sup- 
posed to be invested with special dignity and power; 
he was made man's Lord and Judge; his readiness 
to sympathize and help constitutes his priestly func- 
tion. The difficulties mentioned above apply in full 
force here, as well as to the following theories. 3 

g 192, Bushnell's Theory, 

The school represented by Bushnell's name re- 

1 See Dr. Rigg, Modern Anglican Theology, on Coleridge, 
Hare, Maurice, Kingsley, and Jowett, i. e., on the Broad- 
church theology. 2 Ree Winer, Confessions of Christendom, 
p. 64. 3 Crawford, as before, p. 287; Cunningham, Historical 
Theology, vol. ii. chap, xxiii. 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 213 

solves Christ's Priesthood into Sympathy. Sympa- 
thy is certainly a necessary qualification for a 
priest (Hebrews iv. 15; v. 2). But it is only a qualifi- 
cation for priestly work, not the work itself. The 
Epistle to the Hebrews, after showing that Christ 
possessed the requisite qualifications, goes on to 
speak of the w^ork he did as priest — he offered a sac- 
rifice for sin, the sacrifice being himself. Sympathy 
is a requisite for a priest, not for a sacrifice. The 
advocates of this theory are driven to explain all 
that is said in the epistle about Christ's proper work 
as priest, which forms the very theme of the epis- 
tle, as mere figure of speech and condescension to 
Jewish notions, a course which makes a whole book 
of Scripture practically meaningless, in fact mere 
rhetorical artifice. " Christ is called a Priest by 
poetic license rather than in plain prose." Dr. 
Bruce justly says: "Unless we are to treat the Epis- 
tle to the Hebrews as a portion of Scripture possess- 
ing no permanent value for the Church, as being in- 
deed nothing more than an ingenious piece of reason- 
ing for a temporary purpose, we must regard Christ's 
priesthood as a great reality." 1 Bushnell in his 
later writings goes so far as to admit that Christ, in 
the fullness of his sympathy, imputes man's sin to 
himself, which is a considerable advance toward or- 
thodox doctrine. If such subjective imputation on 
Christ's part is right, it is hard to see how an object- 
ive imputation of man's sin to Christ on the Father's 
part can be wrong. Moreover, as already remarked, 
sympathy and self-sacrifice must be shown in se- 
curing some practical end. 2 What was the practi- 

1 Humiliation of Christ. 2 Crawford, Scripture Doctrine of 
Atonement, pp. 297, 335. 



214 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

cal end in Christ's death on the present theory? If 
he did not atone for sin, what did he do? The ortho- 
dox or the Socinian answer is the only alternative. 
Christ's death is supposed, truly enough, to act as a 
motive, inducing us to forsake sin and seek forgive- 
ness. But it can only have this influence on us 
when we see that it delivers us from some great evil 
or procures us some priceless good. Failing this, 
how can it inspire gratitude or lead to obedience? 
Again, we ask, What on this theory was the great 
service rendered by Christ's death, the sight of 
which is to have this effect? 1 

1 193. The Mystical Theory. 
Another form of the theory, held by Maurice, 
Schleiermacher, Eitschl, Irving, Menken, is known 
as the Mystical theory, "Redemption by Sample" 
(Bruce). According to it, Christ is the perfect ex- 
ample of what we ought to be. He rendered to God 
the perfect devotion and obedience which we ought 
to render. This is the only meaning of sacrifice in 
Scripture — self-consecration to God's service, self- 
sacrifice. The sole purpose of the Jewish sacrifices 
was to set forth this truth symbolically. Dr. Bruce 
well states Maurice's view thus: "Christ, as the root 
and archetype of humanity, in his own person offered 
up man as an acceptable sacrifice to God, in the 
sense of exhibiting in his life and death the entire 
surrender of the whole spirit and body to God, and 
the complete renunciation of that self-will which is 
the cause of all men's crimes and misery. Such self- 
sacrifice was what was really meant by all the legal 
sacrifices; for the victims died, not as substitutes for 

1 Crawford, Scripture Doctrine of Atonemeut, p. 371. 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 215 

the offerer, but as symbols of his devotion. What 
these legal sacrifices dimly foreshadowed, Christ 
perfectly realized. In his life and death he offered 
up the one complete sacrifice ever offered, the per- 
fect example of self-surrender and devotion to the 
divine will; and God accepted the sacrifice, as made, 
not by an individual, but by the race as represent- 
ed by its archetypal man." 1 It might seem at first 
sight as if in these words the fact of representation 
or substitution were accepted; but it is certain that 
nothing could be more opposed to the entire drift of 
Mr. Maurice's teaching. Christ is simply, as with 
Schleiermacher, the ideal man, and is accepted as 
such by God. All that he did he owed to God on 
his own account. Ritschl expressly says that eve- 
rything he did as priest he did for himself. Here 
then we are still at the Socinian standpoint. Christ's 
life and death can only benefit us by acting as an ex- 
ample and stimulus. Both Irving and Menken 
made Christ the possessor of a sinful nature. 2 His 
perfect holiness was shown in never allowing it to 
issue in sinful act. 3 

1 194. Dr. Campbell's Vie^w . 

A peculiar theory, advocated by Dr. McLeod 

1 Humiliation of Christ, p. 310. 2 They appeal, of course, to 
Rom. viii. 3, and say that unless Christ assumed our nature 
with its sinfulness, he was not man like us. Yet, according to 
Menken, Christ was never tempted from within. He absolute- 
ly suppressed sin from the first. This constituted the atone- 
ment. Christ's being " without sin " means that he was with- 
out actual sin; a very limited interpretation. All this Christ 
did as a man without help from his divine nature. 3 Crawford, 
p. 318; Rigg, Modern Anglican Theology, ch. xvii. 



216 DOCTRINES OP REDEMPTION. 

Campbell. 1 makes the essence of the Atonement to 
consist in Christ having made a Perfect Confession 
of sin for us. Re saw. as we cannot, into the depths 
of sin. and was thus able to make an adequate ac- 
knowledgment of it for us. The necessity of repara- 
tion is admitted, and the reparation is found in what 
is really an act of vicarious repentance on Christ's 
part. Not to say that the sense of personal guilt, 
which forms the core of repentance, must be want- 
ing in Christ's case, we find it impossible to think of 
repentance as performed vicariously. If there is 
any act that is essentially and exclusively personal. 
it is repentance. But even if this objection were re- 
moved, we have to ask whether repentance alone is a 
sufficient atonement. Campbell's teaching, like So- 
cinianism. assumes that it is. In this case man's re- 
pentance alone would suffice, if it were higher in de- 
gree. Nothing but a difference of degree is left be- 
tween what Christ did and what man himself might 
do. 

It thus appears that all these four theories in dif- 
ferent degrees make self -sacrifice the central idea of 
Christ's death, and they have undoubtedly rendered 
good service in calling attention to this truth. If 
self-sacrifice as the showing of sympathy cannot be 
the proper or main end of any action i§1S1. p. 199'. 
how was it shown in Christ's dying for us? None of 
these four theories can say more than this: by fidel- 
ity to truth and right even to death, by perfect sur- 
render of self-will and devotion to God's will, by a 
perfect acknowledgment of God's justice in punish- 

to Jonathan Edward? an "I B\:r-er: ■:: Prvrz. Cra^f:rh v.--. 327, 
331. 369. 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 217 

ing sin. In all this Christ would simply do perfectly 
what we do more or less imperfectly. There is no 
unique service or benefit on Christ's part. The or- 
thodox doctrine says: Christ showed sympathy and 
gave a peifect example of self-sacrifice in offering 
himself as a sacrifice for man's sin,thus propitiating 
God's righteous anger and making satisfaction to 
his law. On the former view important Scripture 
elements are ignored. 

1 195. F. W. Robertson's View. 

F. W. Robertson's views on this subject are im- 
portant because of the influence of his name. But 
it is not easy to define them. In truth, Robertson 
speaks with two voices. So far as profession goes, 
nothing could be more definite and satisfactory than 
many of his utterances. In the sermon on "The 
Sacrifice of Christ" (iii. 90), he emphatically teaches 
its "vicarious" character, although his exposition 
only seems to amount to this, that Christ was the 
victim of the world's sin in general, and that he is 
"the realized ideal of humanity." In the sermon on 
"The Good Shepherd" (ii.265),he rejects "the meager 
explanation" of Unitarians; "they say that Christ 
merely died as a martyr, in attestation of the truths 
he taught." Again, in the sermon on "Caiaphas's 
View of Vicarious Sacrifice" (i. 132), whatever may 
be thought of the exposition given, Christ's vicari- 
ous sacrifice is expressly affirmed : "It was a sacrifice 
for the world'* sin." But when we ask what the 
nature of this sacrifice was, the only answer we get 
is that it is the spirit of self-sacrifice in Christ. This 
is asserted again and again. There is not a word 
about expiation or propitiation, so far as we know. 



218 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

The drift of the sermon on -The Sacrifice of Christ" 
(iii. 101) is, that we receive the benefit of Christ's act 
of self-sacrifice onlv by imitating it. In the sermon 
on -Christ the Son" (ii. 141), after making "entire 
surrender to the divine will" the essence of sacrifice, 
Lo adds, "all other notions of sacrifice are false," and 
characterizes certain extreme statements as "bor- 
rowed from the bloody shambles of heathenism, and 
not from Jewish altars." Here he seems quite to co- 
incide with Maurice's teaching. In the sermon on 
"Caiaphas," it is not easy to decide whether he is 
arguing against expiation and satisfaction in every 
form, or only against certain inferences from it or 
ways of putting it. How the statement that Christ's 
death was the inevitable result of his character and 
work is reconcilable with his own words in John 
x. 18, xix. 11, it is not easy to see. "The self-sacri- 
fice of Christ was the satisfaction to the Father. 5 ' 1 
Throughout, the main, if not the sole, reference is 
to the effect on man's mind and heart. 

§ 196. Incarnation and Redemption Coincident. 

A theory, favored by High-church and Catholic 
writers, 2 inclines to make Redemption coincident 
with the Incarnation. The very union of the di 
vine with human nature is supposed in some way 
to have sanctified the race. The grace is actually 
experienced when the believer is united with the hu- 
manity of Christ, which is done in the Sacraments, 

1 >ee also sermons on "Reconciliation by Christ" (iv. 208), 
and "The Sinlessness of Christ" (iv. 77). - TTilberforce, Doc- 
trine of the Incarnation ; Oxenham, Catholic Doctrine of Atone- 
ment ; Xorris, Eudiments of Theology, p. 268, etc. 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 219 

the Sacraments being regarded as an " extension of 
the Incarnation." It is hard to know what is the 
Scripture warrant for the speculation. Redemp- 
tion is never there specifically connected with the 
Incarnation, nor is the act of the Incarnation made 
specially prominent. Compare this reticence with 
the emphasis laid on Christ's passion and death, 
both in the Gospels and Epistles, and the frequent, 
we may say constant, ascription of atoning efficacy 
to the death. Moreover, if the work of atonement 
was accomplished in the Incarnation, the passion 
and death were superfluous and unjustifiable. It 
may also be worth while to add that the theory is 
irreconcilable with the prominence given to the 
cross and passion in High-church and Catholic forms 
of worship. The Communion service of the English 
Church commemorates the love of God in giving his 
"only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross 
for our redemption, who made there a full, perfect, 
and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction 
for the sins of the whole world." The High-church 
school, whatever it may think of the Thirty-nine Ar- 
ticles, acknowledges the Prayer Book as a rule of 
doctrine. It is difficult to avoid the impression that 
much that is said by writers of this class against 
the notion of vicarious satisfaction, and especially 
against extreme forms in which it has been held by 
individual writers, is prompted by prejudice against 
the Reformation, which, without exception, was rig- 
idly faithful to the central doctrine of Atonement. 1 

1 South, Sermon xxxiii., on Messiah's Sufferings, penal and 
expiatory. 



220 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

1 197. Back to the Fathers. 

Mr. Xorris, in his excellent Rudiments of Theol- 
ogy, raises the cry. -Back to the Fathers," whose 
teaching he greatly prefers to that of the Reforma- 
tion, and even of Anselm (p. 311). We are sorry 
that we do not find his views very clear or consist- 
ent. We are told that "in Athanasius's view (as in 
St. Paul's) the efficacy of Christ's Death and Res- 
urrection was due to that mystical union with us 
which his Incarnation had established" (p. 289); and 
that "the thought in St. Augustine's mind here, as 
ever in treating of this subject, is that of the -mys- 
tical union between Christ and those whose nature 
he had assumed" (p. 297). And again, "the doc- 
trine of forensic justification was unheard of until 
the Reformation" (p. 297;. Xow (to speak only of 
Athanasius) we find both the idea of Satisfaction 
and that of Union in Mr. Xorris's own exposition of 
his views. What is the meaning of the dilemma to 
which Athanasius refers? "God could not leave 
mankind to perish; his law of holiness could not be 
relaxed; only the Logos could regenerate" (p. 286). 
How is this dilemma to be escaped, but by repa- 
ration or satisfaction? Athanasius himself says: 
"The Logos, surrendering unto death that Body 
which he had assumed, as an unblemished victim 
and sacrifice, was able to cancel death's empire over 
all partakers of His likeness, by the oblation of an 
equivalent" (p. 290). And much else in the same 
strain. The extract riven on p. 290 is Anselm's the- 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 221 

ory in nuce. 1 What, again, is the meaning of the Sat- 
isfaction taught by Norris himself? (pp. 55. 57). Is 
not this a " forensic" idea? The truth is, that in the 
Fathers, as in Scripture, both aspects are present. 
Perhaps the Eeformers erred in dwelling on one ex- 
clusively, the one that had been neglected so long. 
Do not let us dwell on the other exclusively. Scrip- 
ture speaks of a union of believers with Christ in his 
death, resurrection, ascension, session, but never of 
union with him in his Incarnation. How is that 
possible? The Incarnation is simply the necessary 
precondition of union with him in the other respects. 
We again press the question, If Christ's death was 
not a satisfaction and not vicarious, how could it 
benefit us more than any other death? It is to these 
very elements that its power to redeem others is 
due. To say that "the mystical union between 
Christ and man explains the truly sacrificial charac- 

*It is quite certain that, nearly seven centuries before An- 
selm, Athanasius anticipated all the essentials of the Anselmic 
doctrine. The penal character of death, the equal claims of di- 
vine holiness and love, the necessity of the death of the God* 
man to meet those claims, the vicarious, sacrificial purpose of 
Christ's death, are all present. Sometimes Athanasius makes 
the sacrifice to be offered to God, sometimes to the law. The 
life-giving power of the atonement is specially emphasized. 
" By giving up the temple of his body to death instead of all, 
he offered a sacrifice for all." " It is we who in him were obe- 
dient to the Father, as we now rule in him." " His death is 
the death of all, the death of mankind; in him all died." " He 
took on himself the sentence of the law, and by suffering in the 
flesh for all bestowed salvation on all." " The Logos assumed a 
mortal body to fulfill the law in it for us, to offer a vicarious 
sacrifice, to destroy death, to give immortality, and so restore 
God's image in men." Thorn asius, Christi Person u. Werk, 
Theil 3, Abth. i. p. 203. 



222 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

ter of his death/ 1 is to unite incongruous ideas. As 
Priest, Christ is our representative; as Sacrifice, our 
substitute. We can speak of union with a Repre- 
sentative, but not with a Substitute. At the same 
time, one must acknowledge that the Christian 
Church has not yet found a perfect adjustment of 
these different aspects of the atonement. 1 

§ 198. The Governmental Theory. 

The Governmental or Rectoral theory of Grotius 
and Dr. Wardlaw 2 finds the chief purpose of atone- 
ment in the public vindication of the divine law and 
government. It was much more for man's than 
God's sake, to prevent the laws which are so closely 
bound up with man's welfare being trifled with. 
This, indeed, is one of the purposes or results of the 
atonement, but it can scarcely be regarded as the 
chief or only one. The theory has too utilitarian an 

1 " In so far we may say, In the Incarnation fellowship with 
God is already established," i. e., in the person of Christ indi- 
vidually considered. " But it is not yet re-established. For in 
the fellowship as existing in Christ the sinful race is not yet 
reconciled to God, and consequently not the actual object of his 
complacency. Neither Christian experience nor Scripture de- 
rives the reconciliation from this source. The Incarnation is 
merely the postulate of the latter," the conditio sine qua non. 
(Thomasius, Christi Person und "Werk, Abth. 3, p. 52.) The 
same holds good of the personal holiness of Christ's life. 
Thomasius then adds: "The re-establishing of fellowship with 
God could only be effected by the suffering of the God-man, 
the mrrender of his life, the offering up of himself." At the 
same time, of course, " the Redeemer's self-surrender to death 
cannot be isolated from his preceding life, which was already 
a continuous suffering under sin, through sin and with sin- 
ners." See Thomasius, pp. 57, 65. 2 Systematic Theology, 3 
vols.; Crawford, p. 380; Shedd, Hist. ii. 356. 



DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 223 

aspect. It gives God's greatest act too much the air 
of an expedient. Nothing but the highest moral 
necessity, grounded in God's nature, would justify 
such humiliation on the part of God's everlasting 
Son. Even the incidental results of the Incarnation, 
such as the present theory supposes, are great; still, 
they are only incidental. 

1 199. General Points. 

We may here mention, and partly repeat, some 
points ever to be borne in mind on the present sub- 
ject. 1. One is the harmony of the principle of atone- 
ment with the "solidarity" of the race, and the law 
of substitution at work in society. "The one for the 
many" represents a principle that is one of the chief 
factors in the world's progress. The mission of 
some is to think, suffer, sacrifice for others. The 
whole gain of their lives descends to the race be- 
cause of the unity binding individuals together. 1 2. 
The difficulty, if there is any, does not lie in Christ 
dying for the guilty, but in his dying at all. The 
high moral purpose does not increase, it rather les- 
sens, the difficulty. Christ being sinless, death had 
no claim on him; yet he died. His sinlessness and 
his death are facts admitted by all with whom we 
need to argue on this question. But, indeed, where 
is the supposed wrong? Whenever in extraordi- 
nary circumstances men are found willing to face 
danger and suffering for the good of others, they are 
looked upon as examples of the highest virtue. Why 

Corner, Syst. iv. 89, 99, 107; Gilbert, Lect. iii., vi., vii.; F. 
W. Robertson, Sermons, i. 138; Simon, Redemption of Man, 
ch. ii. 



224 DOCTKINES OF REDEMPTION. 

should Christ's act be judged differently? So far as 
it was an instance of self-sacrificing love, where is 
the difference? "Far a good man some would even 
dare to die." The most heroic human virtue only 
reaches so far as to do this for friends. Christ did 
the same for a world of enemies. 3. Christ's act was 
legitimate and voluntary in the most perfect degree. 
No man has absolute power over his own life; Christ 
had. "No man taketh my life from me," John x. 18. 
4. An enlightened conscience can only be satisfied 
with forgiveness that does not infringe on law and 
justice. Mere safety from merited penalty may sat- 
isfy selfish fear; but it cannot satisfy a conscience 
awake to the majesty of righteousness. Such a con- 
science puts the glory of God and the good of the 
whole before its own peace. 

\ 200, Literature. 

Dale, Christian Atonement; Crawford, Scripture 
Doctrine of Atonement; Gilbert, Christian Atone- 
ment; Pye-Smith,Four Discourses on Christ's Priest- 
hood; Smeaton, The Lord's and the Apostles' Doc- 
trine of Atonement, 2 vols. ; Dorner, Syst. Christian 
Doctr. iii. 401-429, and iv. 1-124; T. Goodwin, Christ 
the Mediator, Works, vol. v. ; Lyttleton, Essay in Lux 
Mundi. 

[Cave, Scripture Doctrine of Sacrifice; Miley, 
Atonement in Christ; Jenkyn, The Extent of the 
Atonement, in its Kelation to God and the Universe; 
Tigert, The Methodist Doctrine of Atonement, in 
Methodist Quarterly Review (New York), April, 1884; 
Summers's Systematic Theology, with Tigert's addi- 
tions, i. 215-298.— J. J. T.] 



DOCTBINE OF ATONEMENT. 225 

IV. UNIVEESAL EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 
§ 201. Calvinism and Arminianism. 

This is one of the points of difference between Ar- 
minianism and Calvinism. The idea of a limited 
atonement was not and could not be learned directly 
from Scripture. The absence of all restriction (John 
i. 29, iii. 16; 1 John ii. 1, 2), the universal terms used 
(1 Timothy ii. 4-6; Hebrews ii. 9; Eomans v. 18; 2 
Corinthians v. 14 ; Titus ii. 11, 12), the statement that 
Christ died even for the lost (Romans xiv. 15; 1 
Corinthians viii. 11), the commands to all to repent, 
point to the opposite conclusion. The idea really 
arose as a necessity of the theory of predestination, 
with which the statements of Scripture just referred 
to had then to be brought into harmony by inserting 
qualifications. Admit the unconditional election of 
individuals to salvation, and other consequences fol- 
low, such as particular redemption, irresistible grace, 
the denial of free will, unconditional perseverance. 
The argument is, "All are saved for whom Christ 
died, and yet all are not saved; for, unless we accept 
the first position, we must believe that God's purpose 
fails." But does God will our salvation uncondi- 
tionally? And if his purpose is conditional, there 
is no failure. Another argument, to the effect that 
unless God had decreed the salvation of some ab- 
solutely, all might have refused, and so God's plan 
have fallen utterly to the ground, is very farfetched. 

§ 202. Augustinian Predestination. 

Unscriptural and dangerous as the theory of 
Predestination is, it is unjust to charge it entirely 
upon Calvin and Luther. Augustine was its real 
15 



226 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

inventor. He adopted it in extreme recoil from Pe- 
lagianism. Admit liis extreme doctrine of Original 
Sin, and then, if anyone is to be saved at all, it can 
only be the work of divine power without assent or 
concurrence of man. Man can have no more to say 
to his own personal salvation than to his original re- 
demption. Here is the fountain head of the whole 
theory. Calvin simply borrowed Augustine's sys- 
tem, and worked it out completely on every side. 1 
Supralapsarian Calvinism includes even the Fall in 
the divine decree; Infralapsarian puts the decree 
after the Fall. The Roman Church, though it has no 
formal definition on the subject, has always been 
anti-Augustinian on this question; so with Luther- 
anism and the High-church school. On the oth?r 
hand, the Low-church school, the Reformed Churches 
of the Continent, the Presbyterian Churches, the old 
Independents, and the Baptists, are all Predestina- 
rian or Augustinian. 

111 There's no such thing as Calvinism. The teachings of 
Augustine, Eemigius, Anselm, and Luther were just pieced to- 
gether by one remarkable man, and the result baptized with 
his name n : Duncan, Colloquia Peripatetica, p. 9. The Jansen- 
ists or Port-Royalists in the Roman Catholic Church held Au- 
gustine's doctrine of predestinarianism, but they were quickly 
suppressed by the bull Unigenitus and the secular power; see 
J. H. Blunt's Dictionary of Sects, art. "Jansenists." See also 
under " Supralapsarians," " Calvinists," etc. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION. 

§203. Subjective Blessings— $204. Augustinianism,Pelagianism, Ar- 
minianism— $205. Predestinabianism:— $206. Conversion— §207. Re- 
pentance and Faith— §208. Saying Faith— §209. Repentance and 
Faith of Penitents and Believers— §210. Arminian Position— 
§211. Justification, Regeneration, Sanctification— §212. The 
Roman Catholic Doctrine— §213. The Protestant Doctrine— 
§214. Scripture Teaching— §215. Forensic Teaching of Romans— 
§216. Forensic Atonement and Forensic Justification— §217. Ob- 
jections to the Protestant Doctrine Considered— §21S. Pecul- 
iar Calvinistic Phraseology— §219. Faith the Only Condition— 
§220. Scripture Teaching— §221. The Roman Doctrine of Merit— 
§222. St. James and St. Paul— §223. Historical Review— $224. Com- 
munication of the Xe^ Life— §225. Scriptural Idea— §223. Adop- 
tion— §227. Introductory— §228. Nature of Sanctification— Neg- 
ative Side— §220. Positive Side— §230. Is There a Direct Witness 
of the Spirit?— §231. Christian Ethics— §232. Progressiveness oi 
Sanctification— § 233. A Practical Danger— §231. Mr. Wesley's 
Views— § 235. Entire Sanctification Possible in the Present Life 
—§236. Mr. Wesley's Own Account of His Teaching— §237. Dr. 

- Mozley's Criticism of Mr. Wesley's Qualifications— §238. An- 
glican and Roman Concessions— §239. Sinless Perfection a Xon- 
Wesleyan Phrase — §210. Both Gradual and Instantaneous— 
§241. Historical Review of the Doctrine— §242. Position of 
Methodism— §213. General Doctrine— §214. Methodist Teach- 
ing of Direct Witness— §215. Fanaticism Guarded Against— §246. 
Full Assurance— §247. Arminianism and C alvinism— § 218. Means 
of Security. 

\ 203. Subjective Blessings. 
The blessing of atonement just considered is univer- 
sal, unconditional, objective; the blessings now to be 
considered are individual, conditional, subjective. 
Calvinism speaks of their " application;" Arminian- 
ism prefers to speak of their " administration." The 
Holy Spirit is in a special sense the administrator. 1 

1 Dorner, Svstem of Christian Doctrine, iv. 168. 

(227) 



228 DOCTRINES OE REDEMPTION. 

I 204. Augnstmianism, Pelagiardsni, Arminianism. 

The question of the relation of divine to human 
agency in this field is the question of the relation of 
divine grace to free will. 1 Augustine denied the sec- 
ond, Pelagius denied the first. Arminianism tries, 
while avoiding the two extremes, to maintain the 
truth in both. Xot that it puts the two factors on a 
level. On the contrary, it puts grace first, and makes 
it supreme. The Spirit is given to all men as the 
fruit of atonement, and grace works in all, works to- 
ward salvation. This holds good of all without ex- 
ception, has held good since the beginning. It holds 
good of the unconverted before conversion, of those 
who never are converted, of the heathen who have 
never heard of Christ. Anticipating human desire 
and effort (hence called prevenient grace), it checks 
and counteracts sin, inspires and fosters good in- 
clination, and allures to the search for more grace. 
This universal divine working is the source of moral 
good and beauty in the irreligious. When welcomed 
and followed up, it passes into saving grace. Xoth- 
ing but neglect or resistance prevents its having this 
issue in any case. It is here that Arminianism and 
Predestinarianism part company. The latter holds 
what it calls "common grace,*' which it credits with 
all the effects just mentioned, but which never be- 
comes or can become effectual saving grace. Com- 
mon grace belongs to all, effectual grace only to the 
elect individuals. Such a distinction can never be 
reconciled with Scripture, with the divine justice, or 
with human responsibility. If we are asked whether 

1 T. Goodwin, Work of Holy Ghost in Our Salvation, Works, 
vol. vi., except the Calvinism. 



THE EXPERIENCE OE SALVATION. 229 

the power by which man accepts God's proffered 
grace is from God or from man, we answer, From 
God. "The power by which man cooperates with 
grace is itself of grace" (Pope). But every man has 
it by divine gift. According to Augustine/ there is 
no power to cooperate with God until after regenera- 
tion, and if so, no responsibility. We hold that such 
power and responsibility exist from the first dawn of 
moral life. Arminianism is often charged with the 
error of semi-Pelagianism, which gives to man the 
power to originate good in himself, and only makes 
divine help necessary to its completion. The above 
statement shows that the charge is without founda- 
tion. 

$ 205. Predestinarianism. 

Although Augustine's doctrine of Predestination 
was never adopted by the Church as a whole, it led 
to fierce controversv and much division. 2 In the 
ninth century it was defended in all its severity by 
Gottschalk, a Saxon monk, and as strongly resisted 
by Hincmar and Eabanus Maurus. Synods con- 
demned it, and Gottschalk died in prison. The 
schoolmen only adopted portions of Augustine's sys- 
tem. Bradwardine, Archbishop of Canterbury in 
the fourteenth century, like Gottschalk, held the 
twofold decree of election and reprobation. Wyclif 
and Huss are on the same side. It may be said that 
the whole of the Protestant Bef ormation was at first 
Predestinarian. There is reason to think that Lu- 
ther's views on this question softened somewhat in 

1 See Smith's Diet. Biogr., "Augustine." 2 Luthardt, Comp. 
d. Dogmatik, p. 110; Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, ii. 
342; Blunt, Diet. Theol., "Election." 



230 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

his later years, and it is certain that Melanchthon's 
did. The Lutheran symbols are not predestinarian. 
Zwingii was like Calvin in his predestinarianisni, 
but, unlike him, he betrays a tendency to universal- 
ism, not to speak of pantheism. It was Calvin who 
first worked out Augustine's doctrine to its final is- 
sues, and made it the cardinal point of a theological 
system. His starting point, like his great predeces- 
sor's, was the complete bondage of man's will to evil. 
Salvation, therefore, can be nothing but the execu- 
tion of a divine decree, which fixes its extent and 
conditions. The Incarnation, the work of the Spirit, 
the agencies of the Church, are simply the necessary 
means for accomplishing a necessary end. The 
Church consists of the elect. Eeprobation is in- 
volved in election. Foreknowledge and foreordina- 
tion are identical. Calvin asks: "Why do we speak 
of permitting, exgept because he so wills?" And all 
this is for the glory of God ! Calvin's definition runs : 
"Predestination is the eternal decree of God, by 
which he has decided with himself what is to become 
of each and every individual. For all are not creat- 
ed in like condition; but eternal life is foreordained 
for some, eternal condemnation for others.'' 1 "A 
horrible decree, indeed. I confess. He so foreknew, 
because he so determined by his own decree." Yet 
lie tries to throw the blame on man: "Man therefore 
falls, God's providence so ordaining, but he falls by 

1 " Cur permittere dicemu-, nisi quia, ita vult? Praedestina- 
tionem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitu- 
turn habuit, quid de unoquoque h online fieri vellet. Xon enim 
pari conditione ereantur omnes; sed aliifi vita aeterna, aliis 
damnatio aeterna praeordinatur": Instit. iii. 21. 5. 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALTATION. 231 

his own fault.'' The Seventeenth Article of the 
English Church teaches a moderate form of predes- 
tination. 1 

\ 206. Conversion. 

The scriptural use of the term Conversion well il- 
lustrates the union of the two factors in actual salva- 
tion, denoting as it does both the divine (Jeremiah 
xxxi. 18; Acts iii. 26) and the human (Acts iii. 19; xi. 
21) side. The term itself is ambiguous. It is gener- 
ally applied to the commencement of spiritual life 
and to the work of inward renewal, but it mav cover 
the whole process. 

I. CONDITIONS OF SALVATION. 
\ 207. Repentance and Faith. 

Man's cooperation comes out clearly in the two 
great conditions of Repentance and Faith. " Re- 
pentance is true sorrow for sin, with sincere effort 
to forsake it." " Faith in Christ is a saving grace, 
whereby we receive him, trust in him, and rest upon 
him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the 

1 "Winer (Conf. of Christendom) classifies the "Keformed" 
creeds as " those which maintain a stricter predestination," and 
those u which have a milder expression, or give prominence to 
universal redemption, or keep silence on the question." In the 
first class are the Gallic and Belgic Confessions, Canons of 
Dort, Formula Consensus Helvetici, Westminster Confession; 
in the second the Basle Confession, Helvetic ii., Thirty-nine 
Articles, Art. xvii. Ample quotations are given from these as 
well as from the Arminian and Lutheran Creeds, p. 162. Pope, 
Comp. ii. 351 ; Blunt, Diet, of Sects, "Arrninians," p. 51 ; Diet. 
TheoL, "Arminianism ; " South, Serm. xxxiii., teaches the Dutch 
federal theology and predestination. 



232 DOGTBINES OF REDEMPTION. 

gospel." 1 These definitions rightly call attention to 
the fact that in each case the emotional element is 
the principal one— "sorrow, trust." Both repent- 
ance and faith are acts of the whole man; intelli- 
gence, feeling, and will are all engaged, but the de- 
termining element is feeling. Knowledge leads on 
to feeling, and feeling to action. The knowledge in- 
volved in repentance is specific knowledge, knowl- 
edge of the personal character and heinous nature of 
sin as done against God. Such personal conviction 
issues in sorrow for sin, " repentance toward God" 
(Acts xx. 21). Confession and amendment are the 
final step (Matthew iii. 8). 2 

I 208. Saving Faith. 

Saving Faith, according to the teaching of Prot- 
estant Churches, is personal trust in Christ. Apol. : 
"The faith that justifies is not merely historical 
knowledge, but it is to assent to the promise of God, 
in which the remission of sins and justification are 
offered freely for Christ's sake. . . . Faith is not 
only knowledge in the understanding, but also trust 
in the will, i. e., it is to will and accept what is of- 

1 See also Pope, Comp. ii. 371, 376 5 411. Mr. Y\ T esley draws a 
distinction between the sense and degree in which repentance 
is necessary and that in which faith is necessary. The efficacy 
of repentance depends on the presence of true faith. " Repent- 
ance and its fruits are only remotely necessary; necessary in 
order to faith; whereas faith is immediately and directly necessa- 
ry to justification. It remains, that faith is the only condition 
which is immediately and proximately necessary to justification w : 
Serm. xliii. See also Serm. v. 2 Farindon, Sermons, vol. i. 496 ; 
Hare, Mission of the Comforter, Serm. ii. 



THE EXPERIENCE OE SALVATION. 233 

fered in the promise/' etc. 1 "It is to believe, to rely 
on the merits of Christ, that for his sake God is cer- 
tainly willing to show mercy to us/' Apol. A. C. "A 
very firm confidence and abiding assent of the mind/' 
Helv. ii. "A hearty confidence which the Holy 
Ghost works in me through the gospel, that not 
only for others, but for me also, the forgiveness of 
sins, everlasting righteousness, and blessedness with 
God are bestowed of his grace," Cat. Heidelberg. 2 
"A sure trust and confidence that Christ died for my 
sins, that he loved me, and gave himself for me." 3 
Faith is thus trust in Christ for a specific purpose. 
Of course it presupposes both knowledge and intel- 
lectual faith in God's revelation and in Christ. But 
the latter kind of faith may often and often does ex- 
ist without leading to trust. Roman teaching makes 
faith intellectual and general. It does not recog- 
nize faith in the particular sense just mentioned. 
Winer says justly: "The Eomanists most assuredly 
require faith as a personal disposition on the part of 
him who shall attain justification; but that faith is 
not a trust in the merit of Christ, it is that general 
credence of the doctrines of the Christian revelation 
which is rooted in the understanding." 4 Bellarmin 
says: "The object of faith, which heretics restrict to 
the promise of special mercy alone, Catholics would 
make as wide as the Word of God. . . . Then 

1 "Illa fides, quae justificat, non est tan turn notitia historic, sed 
est assentiri promissioni Dei, in qua gratis propter Christum 
offertur remissio peccatorum et justification "Fides est non 
tantum notitia in intellectu, sed etiam fiducia in voluntate, h.l. 
est velle et accipere hoc quod in promissione offertur," etc. 
2 Winer, Conf. of Christendom, p. 186, etc. 3 Wesley, vol. v. p. 
60. 4 Winer, p. 189. 



234 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

they differ as to the faculty and power of the mind, 
that is the seat of faith. The former put faith in the 
will, defining it as trust, and so confounding it with 
hope. Catholics teach that faith has its seat in the 
understanding. Lastly, (they differ) as to the intel- 
lectual act itself. For they define faith by knowl- 
edge; we by assent." 1 The Protestant interpreta- 
tion is abundantly justified by the habitual phrase 
used in Scripture in describing the faith necessary 
to salvation — believing in and on Christ (John iii. 15, 
18, 36; vi. 40, 47; 1 John v. 9, 10, 12; Galatians iii. 26; 
Acts xvi. 31) . 2 Faith has been well described as 
"the flight of a penitent sinner to the mercy of God 
in Christ." 

\ 209. Bepentaxice and Faith of Penitents and Believers. 
The repentance and faith of a penitent are to be 
distinguished from those of the Christian believer. 3 
In the latter case repentance and faith are in order 
to a further degree of holiness. A believer has also 
a faith of assurance, a persuasion "that I, even I, am 
now reconciled to God." The latter is frequently 
confounded with penitent faith in order to forgive- 

1 Winer, p. 190. Bellarmin goes on to say: "Judgment or as- 
sent is twofold, for one kind follows the reason and evidence of 
the case, the other follows the authority* of the speaker; the 
former is called knowledge, the latter faith." 2 Even Peter Lom- 
bard says: "Aliud est credere in Deum, aliud credere Deo, aliud 
credere Deum, Credere Deo est credere vera esse quae loquitur, 
quod et mali faciunt, et nos credimus homini, non in hominem. 
Credere Deum est credere quod ipse sit Deus, quod etiam mail 
faciunt. Credere in Deum est credendo amare, credendo in eum 
ire, credendo ei adhserere et ejus membris incorporari": Lu- 
thardt, p. 249; Owen v. 85, 100. s See Wesley on The Repent- 
ance of Believers, Sermon idv. 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION. 235 

ness. The confusion is pernicious. It can never be 
a seeker's duty to believe that he is already forgiven. 
He must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, L e., as he 
is set forth in Scripture, and he is set forth as the 
universal, sufficient, accepted propitiation for sin. 
The same mistake is made in some creeds. Conf. 
Aug., "and believes that his sins are remitted for 
Christ's sake." 1 

Faith is not only a condition, like repentance, but 
also an instrument. We are justified through, not^ 
on account of, our repentance and faith. 2 

I 210. Arininian Position. 
Only Arminianism does justice to these conditions. 
Calvinism is naturally shy of them, its writers either 
ignoring them or confounding them with the repent- 
ance and faith of believers. But in doing so they 
overlook or set aside an important aspect of the 
teaching of the New Testament, which speaks often 
and emphatically of these acts as preceding, and nec- 
essary in order to, personal salvation. It is folly to 
say that the fulfillment of conditions interferes with 
the sovereign freeness of salvation, and would form 
a ground of pride. Are we purely passive in receiv- 
ing other gifts of God? Does our action detract 
from the freeness of those gifts? 

II. BLESSIXGS OF SALVATIOX. 

$ 211. Justification, Regeneration, Sanctification. 

Justification, Regeneration, and Sanctification are 

contemporaneous and inseparable. Everyone who 

experiences the first blessing experiences the others 

1 Winer, p. 191. 2 Owen, vol. y. 109. 



286 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

at the same time. In thought, however, the order 
cannot be changed. It would be unnatural to sup- 
pose man born again before he is justified or for- 
given. Speaking of the first two blessings, Wesley 
says: "The former relates to the great work wliick 
God does for us, in forgiving our sins; the latter to 
the great work which God does in us, in renewing our 
fallen nature. In order of time, neither of these is 
before the other; in the moment we are justified by 
#ithe grace of God, through the redemption that is in 
Jesus, we are also 'born of the Spirit ; ? but in order 
of thinking, as it is termed, justification precedes the 
new birth," Serin, xlv. 

A. — JUSTIFICATION. 

I 212. The Soman Catholic Doctrine. 
The Roman and Protestant Churches differ funda- 
mentally not only as to the condition, but also as to 
the nature, of justification. 1 According to the for- 
mer, it is making man just by infusing righteous- 
ness of nature, being thus equivalent to sanctifica- 
tion or to the entire process of salvation; according 
to the latter, it is making just by declaring or pro- 
nouncing just. 2 This difference of view as to the na- 
ture of the blessing has probably much to do with 
the difference of view as to its condition. If the Eo- 
man view on the first point is the scriptural one, 
there is some reason for including good works at 

1 Hodge, Syst, Theol. iii. 114; Dorner, Syst. Clir. Doctr. iv. 
194; Blunt, Diet. Theol., " Justification," mixes up the Protestant 
and Eomanist views; Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. 
ii. ch. xxi. 2 It is not a declaring innocent. Man is guilty, 
and can never be acquitted as a criminal in a human court is 
acquitted. 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION. 237 

least among the means of the blessing. This differ- 
ence of meaning must be borne in mind throughout. 
Thus, when the Council of Trent says, "If anyone 
shall say that the wicked is justified by faith alone, 
so that he understands nothing else to be requisite to 
his obtaining the grace of justification, ... let 
him be anathema, 4 ' 1 the wide range given to justified 
must be remembered. When, again, Protestant 
Churches declare with Paul that "a man is justified 
by faith apart from the works of the law," the limit- 
ed range given to the same term must be remem- 
bered. 

A single quotation from the Tridentine Council 
will set forth the Eoman idea with sufficient clear- 
ness. "Justification is not the remission of sins 
alone, but also the sanctification and renewal of the 
inner man by the voluntary reception of the grace 
and gifts, by which man from unrighteous becomes 
righteous, and from being an enemy becomes a 
friend, that he may be an heir according to the hope 
of eternal life, ... by the righteousness of Grod, 
by which he makes us righteous; endowed with 
which by him we are renewed in the spirit of our 
mind, and are not only reckoned, but are truly called 
and are righteous, receiving righteousness in us." 2 

1 Winer, p. 134. 2 "Justifieatio non est sola peccatoram remis- 
sio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per volun- 
tariam susceptionem gratise et donorum unde homo ex injusto fit 
Justus et ex inimico amicus, ut sit heres secundum spem vitse eeter- 
nse . . . justitia Dei, qua nos justos facit, qud videlicet ab eo donati 
renovamur spiritu mentis nostra et non modo reputamur, sed 
vere justl nominamnr et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes ": 
Winer, p. 179. It must not be forgotten that Dr. Pusey and 
the great party which agrees with him teach this doctrine of 



238 DOCTBINES OF REDEMPTION. 

\ 213. The Protestant Doctrine. 
The Protestant symbols declare with one voice 
that justify means in Scripture to declare just. 
Justification here signifies not to be made right- 
eous from being wicked, but in the forensic usage to 
be pronounced righteous. ... To be justified is 
to obtain remission of sins. ... To justify in the 
forensic usage means to absolve the guilty and pro- 
nounce righteous, but on account of another's right- 
eousness, namely, Christ's, which righteousness of 
another is imparted to us by means of faith." (Apol. 
A. C. 1 ) The Eleventh Article of the English Church 
and the Westminster Confession speak to the same 
effect. 2 Mr. Wesley says: "The plain scriptural no- 
tion of justification is pardon, the forgiveness of 
sins. It is that act of God the Father, whereby, for 
the sake of the propitiation made by the blood of his 
Son, he 'showeth forth his righteousness (or mercy) 3 
by the remission of sins that are past.' " While, 
however, justification is substantially the same as 
forgiveness, it is also different. Otherwise, why two 
terms instead of one? Justification is forgiveness 
in accordance with law, a putting right in relation to 
law. There might be forgiveness without justifica- 

Trent as well as other doctrines. On the whole difference be- 
tween the Roman and Protestant doctrine, see Dean Jack- 
son, Bk. iv. ch. vii.; also Cramp, Text-book of Popery p. 73. 
1 " Justificari hie significat non, ex impio justtim effici, sed usu 
forensi justumpronuntiari. . . . Conseqni remissionem pec- 
catorum est justificari. . . . Justificare hi. (Rom. v. 1) forensi 
consuetudine eignificat reum absolvere et pronuntiare justuin, 
sed propter alienam justitiam, videlicet Chris ti. qnse alienajnsti- 
tia communicatur nobis per ridem": Winer, p. ISO. 2 Ibid., p. 
187. 3 An incorrect exposition. 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION. "A&d 

tion. The very term just or righteous suggests the 
idea of law, implying as it does a standard of com- 
parison. According to Liddell and Scott, the Prot- 
estant interpretation is the only one known to clas- 
sical usage (Swcatow, "to hold as right or fair, deem 
right, think fit," implying a judgment passed respect- 
ing something). 1 

§214. Scripture Teaching. 

The final decision turns upon the Scripture use of 
the term. The best way to ascertain this is to ob- 
serve its use in relation to other subjects. In pas- 
sages like Exodus xxiii. 7; Deuteronomy xxv. 1; 1 
Kings viii. 32; Psalms li. i, cxliii. 2; Proverbs xvii. 
15; Isaiah v. 23, i. 8, 9; Luke vii. 29, 35, x. 29, xvi. 15; 
Matthew xi. 19 ; 1 Corinthians iv. 4, the sense of mak- 
ing intrinsically just is out of the question. 2 In 
every case it is the passing of a judgment that is 
meant. When, then, Paul, "a Hebrew of the He- 
brews," with his mind steeped in the Jewish Scrip- 
tures and in current Jewish ideas, takes the term, 
and, without any intimation of a change of meaning, 
applies it to G-od's relation to man, we have no rea- 
son for departing from the meaning fixed by usage, 
especially when this is in perfect harmony with the 

lu How can duccuouv possibly signify 'to make righteous?' 
Verbs indeed of this ending from adjectives of physical mean- 
ing may have this use, e. g., tv6?.ovv, ' to make blind.' But when 
such verbs are derived from adjectives of moral meaning, as 
a^iovv, Sgiovv, diticuovv, they do by usage, and must, from the na- 
ture of things, signify to deem to account, to prove, or to treat as 
worthy, holy, righteous": Canon Evans on 1 Cor. vi. 11, in 
Speaker's Comm. See also Godet's Excursus in Comm. on Ro- 
mans, vol. i. 157. 2 Luthardt, Comp. p. 257; Owen, v. 125, etc. 



240 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

context. See Romans iii. 19, 20, 24-26; Acts xiii. 
38, 39. 

In Romans v. 18, viii. 31, justify is opposed to con- 
demn. To condemn is not to make really bad, but to 
pronounce an adverse judgment. What then must 
justify mean? 

In Romans iv. 4-8 justify is plainly treated as 
equivalent to imputing righteousness, forgiving in- 
iquities, covering sin, not imputing sin. Otherwise 
the quotation from the Psalms has no pertinence. 
Here also there can be no question of making inter- 
nally righteous. See Galatians iii. 6; James ii. 23, 
24;Lukexviii. 13, 14. 

I 215. Forensic Teaching of Romans. 

The most powerful evidence, however, in behalf of 
the Protestant interpretation, is that supplied by the 
whole strain of the first five chapters of the Romans. 
In chapters ii. to v. the apostle is moving in a circle 
of legal or forensic ideas — law, guilt, condemnation, 
propitiation, justification. All these terms hang to- 
gether. To make justify mean the imparting of in- 
trinsic righteousness, would be out of harmony with 
the rest of the exposition. The latter idea is first in- 
troduced in chapter vi., where we have an entirely 
new set of figures and terms. In the earlier argu- 
ment, all men are pronounced guilty before the law, 
and then on the ground of the great propitiation (iii. 
25) they are " justified." What can this mean, in the 
connection of thought, but to be set free from guilt 
and condemnation? 

The nature of the objection which the apostle sup- 
poses to be raised against his teaching (iii. 31, vi. 1) 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION. 241 

confirms our interpretation. Some one objects that 
the doctrine of a man being justified "by faith apart 
from the works of the law/ 5 makes the law of none 
effect. Now if " justify" meant on the apostle's lips 
to make a man internally righteous, how could such 
an objection ever occur to anyone? It would be ab- 
surd; and it is not likely that St. Paul or Scripture 
would condescend to notice mere nonsense. But, ac- 
cording to the Protestant interpretation, such an ob- 
jection seems plausible at first sight. Some one 
might ask, If justification, so defined, is by faith only, 
what is the use of the law, w T hat room is there for 
obedience to it? And precisely the same objection 
is made by Roman and other controversialists 
against the Protestant doctrine of justification, 
which is denounced as immoral and opposed to the 
interests of holiness — a tolerably conclusive proof 
that Paul's doctrine and ours are the same. 1 

§ 216. Forensic Atonement and Forensic Justification, 

There is a close connection between the forensic 
aspect of the atonement and the forensic nature of 
justification, the former being the ground of the lat- 
ter. It is true that the forensic is not the only as- 
pect of atonement, as we have seen, but it is one 
aspect; and justification is not the whole of salva- 
tion, but it is part. Simple forgiveness would remit 

1 Thomasius (Christi Person und Werk, Theil 3, ii. 223) gives 
interesting quotations from Or i gen, showing that that keen 
thinker very early saw the true relation between faith and 
works. " Et puto quod prima salutis initia et ipsa fundamenta 
fides est; profectus vero et augmenta aedincii spes est, perfectio 
autem et culmen totius operis earitas." 
16 



242 DOCTBINES OF BEDEMPTION. 

penalty without regard to law and its satisfaction. 
Justification does so on the ground of the satisfac- 
tion made to law. It is, so to speak, legal forgive- 
ness. It is difficult to see where the legal element 
in the work of atonement finds practical applica- 
tion, if the legal nature of justification is denied. 

§217, Objections to the Protestant Doctrine Considered. 

An objection is sometimes made that the Protest- 
ant doctrine makes God, in declaring a sinner just, 
declare what is contrary to fact. The objection is a 
mere verbal cavil. What is meant is that for the 
sake of Christ God treats guilty man, when penitent, 
as if he were righteous. Christ's merit is reckoned 
his, so that the divine action is not contrary to truth 
and fact. The same objection might be raised 
against forgiveness in any form. In forgiving a sin- 
ner, God treats him as he does not deserve to be 
treated, i. e., regards him as not a sinner. Is this 
unjust? 

The objection, that the doctrine is inimical to the 
interests of morality, has already been considered. 
There would be weight in it if Protestantism or 
Scripture made this blessing the whole of salvation. 
But the necessity of sanctification is just as earnest- 
ly maintained. In fact, it is inseparable from the 
earlier blessing. 

According to the Protestant definition, justifica- 
tion is complete at once; according to the Roman 
one, it is progressive. 

\ 218. Peculiar Calvinistic Phraseology. 
A peculiar phraseology, used in Calvinistic and 
other circles, to describe justification, is the imputa- 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALTATION. 243 

tion of Christ's righteousness. 1 The term to impute 
or reckon is used in Scripture in reference to this 
subject, but it is faith, not Christ's righteousness, 
that is said to be reckoned for righteousness (Ro- 
mans iv. 3-9; Galatians iii. 6; James ii. 23). The 
argument used to justify the phrase in question is, 
that as the object of faith is Christ's righteousness, 
the imputation of faith involves the imputation of 
its object. But this consequence does not necessa- 
rily follow. Even granting that the object of faith 
is correctly stated, the question is, In what aspect or 
for what purpose is that righteousness believed in? 
It need not be in order to personal appropriation, 
but simply as constituting a valid expiation. The 
argument, in short, is a non sequitur. Other develop- 
ments of the phraseology are still more suspicious. 
Christ's righteousness is divided into active and pas- 
sive, the first being his perfect observance of God's 
law, the second his expiatory suffering, and both are 
said to be reckoned to us. If the former is reckoned 
to the believer, so that he is regarded as having kept 
God's law in Christ, it is hard to see how this is con- 
sistent with the requirement of holiness in us. We 
know how earnestly the inference is disavowed, but 
we do not see how it is to be logically avoided. It is 
said in defense that we just as much need Christ's 
perfect obedience to supply the defects of our obedi- 
ence as we need his meritorious suffering to atone 
for our guilt; otherwise we must suppose the de- 
mands of the law to be lowered to meet our weak- 

1 Advocated by Owen, vol. v. p. 162, etc. See Crawford, Scr. 
Doctr. of Atonement, p. 444; Blunt. Diet. Theol., art. "Imputed 
Righteousness." 



244: DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

ness. But is not the same mercy which cancels our 
guilt equal to the forgiveness of our imperfections? 
Why resort to the artificial and unnatural notion of 
a vicarious holiness? If there are spheres of life in 
which substitution is out of place, surely the region 
of personal holiness is one of them. Mr. Wesley ac- 
cepts the phraseology, putting his own meaning upon 
it. He takes it as another way of denying human 
merit and affirming that we are justified solely for 
Christ's sake. But those who use the language 
mean more by it than this. He says: "As the active 
and passive righteousness of Christ were never, in 
fact, separated from each other, so we never need 
separate them at all. It is with regard to these con- 
jointly that Jesus is called 'The Lord our Righteous- 
ness.' But when is this righteousness imputed? 
When they believe; in that very hour the righteous- 
ness of Christ is theirs; it is imputed to every one 
that believes, as soon as he believes. But in what 
sense is this righteousness imputed to believers? In 
this : all believers are forgiven and accepted, not for 
the sake of anything in them, or of anything that 
ever was, that is, or ever can be done by them, but 
wholly for the sake of what Christ hath done and 
suffered for them." (Serin, xx.) It need only be re- 
marked that the language thus explained is a round- 
about way of saying what might be said far more 
clearly and simply. 1 

I 219. Faith, the Only Condition. 

Faith is the only condition of justification. 2 Prot- 

1 Pope, Comp. ii. 446. 2 Justification by faith alone is often 
called the material, the sole authority of Scripture in matters of 



THE EXPERIENCE OE SALVATION. 245 

estantism is as unanimous in making faith the sole 
condition as it is in making forgiveness the sole con- 
tent of the blessing. Sold fide is its watchword here. 
"Sola fide nos justificamur coram Deo, quia sola fide 
accipimus remissionem peccatorum et reconcliatio- 
nem, propter Christum, quia reconciliatio seu justifi- 
catio est res promissa propter Christum, non propter 
legem." (Apol. A. C, Article xi. of English Church. 
Westminster Confession, chapter xi. section l.) 1 The 
Roman condemnation of this view, with its different 
definition, has been already quoted. 

§ 220. Scripture Teaching. 
It is clear that Scripture is with us on this point 
(see Romans iii. 20-28, iv. 4; Ephesians ii. 8-10; 2 
Timothy i. 9 ; Titus iii. 5 ; Acts xvi. 31). The last pas- 
sage is enough to settle the question. The apostle 
says, concluding his argument: "We reckon there- 
fore that a man is justified by faith apart from the 
works of the law." Whatsoever justification means, 
works of the law are excluded from the means by 
Which, it is obtained. If justification means sancti- 
fication, as Rome says, works are excluded from it. 
This passage does not stand alone, as the above 
enumeration shows. The reference cannot be to 

faith, the formal principle of Protestantism, On Faith and Good 
Works see Dean Jackson, Bk. xi. chs. xxx., xxxi. " We are justi- 
fied by faith alone; but we are not justified by that faith which 
can be alone. Alone, respects its influence unto our justification, 
not its nature and existence. And we absolutely deny that we 
can be justified by that faith which can he cdone; that is, without 
a principle of spiritual life and universal obedience, operative in 
all the works of it, as duty doth require": Treatise on Justifica- 
tion, Owen, Works, v. 73. * Winer, p. 185. 



246 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

works of the ceremonial law> for in the whole con- 
text "the law" is spoken of in general terms. The 
ceremonial law did not exist in Abraham's days, iv. 
2. In chapter iv. 4 the apostle even argues that the 
blessing must be through faith, in order that it may 
be of grace. The explanation given by the Council 
of Trent, "We are said to be justified by faith, be- 
cause faith is the beginning of human salvation, the 
foundation and root of all justification/'- 1 is like say- 
ing that a man is made wise and learned by the alpha- 
bet, because the alphabet is the beginning of all 
knowledge. 2 

I 221. The Roman Doctrine of Merit. 
.Nothing has done more to obscure the truth on the 
present subject, in the Konian Church, than the doc- 
trine of the possibility of merit in man. This merit 
is said to be of two kinds or degrees. When man be- 
fore justification yields to prevenient grace, he is 
said by a merit of congruity (meritum de congruo) to 
deserve an increase of grace. The justified merit 
eternal life in a higher sense by a merit of condignity 
(meritum de eondigno). "Since Christ himself is ever 
infusing, as the head into the members, virtue into 
the justified themselves, which virtue always pre- 
cedes and accompanies' and follows their good 
works, and without which they (the good works) can- 
not in any way be pleasing and meritorious before 
God, it is matter of faith that nothing more is want- 
ing to the justified themselves, to entitle them, by 
those good works, which are done in God, to be con- 
sidered as having satisfied God's law as to this 

1 Winer, p. 184. 2 Barrow on Apostles' Creed, Serm. iv. and v. 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALTATION. 247 

earthly life, and, if they die in a state of grace, as 
having merited the eternal life to be attained in due 
time." 1 So Bellarmin says: "The common judgment 
of all Catholics is, that the good works of the right- 
eous are meritorious in the true and proper sense, 
and that they merit not this or that reward, but 
eternal life itself/' 2 It is true, human merit is 
traced to Christ's merit as its source, and Christians 
are warned against self-confidence and pride. But 
the doctrine is a dangerous one; fine distinctions are 
soon rubbed off in common use, and the modicum of 
truth at the basis of the doctrine may be put in safer 
and more moderate terms. 

\ 222. St. James and St. Paul. 
St. James (ii. 14-26) seems at first directly to con- 
tradict St. Paul. In verses 15, 16, 19, he gives an ex- 
ample of the kind of faith which is too little for jus- 
tification, a simply intellectual, inoperative faith, 
faith without fruits of holiness. Paul never said 
that such faith would save. In fact, he says over 
and over again precisely the same as James (Gala- 

1 Con. Trid.vi.16: "Cu'm ille ipsi Christus tanquam caput in 
membra ... in ipsos justificatos jugiter virtutem influat, 
quae virtus bona eorum opera semper antecedit et comitatur et 
subsequitur, et sine qua nullo pacto Deo grata et meritoria esse 
possent, nihil ipsis justificatis amplius deesse credendum est, 
quominus plene illis quidem operibus, quae in Deo sunt facta, 
divinae legi pro hujus vitse statu satis fecisse et vitam aeternam 
suo etiam tempore, si tamen in gratis decesserunt, consequen- 
dam vere promeruisse censeantur ": Winer, p. 196. 2fC Habet 
communis catholicorum omnium sententia, opera bona justorum 
vere ac proprie esse merita, et merita non cujusounque praemii, 
sed ipsius vitae aeternse": Winer, p. 197. On the doctrine of 
Merit, see Jackson, Works, Bk. xi. chs. xxvii., xxviii. 



2-iS DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

tians v. 6; Ephesians ii. 10; Titus iii. S; Romans iii. 
31, viii. -4, 13. xiii. 8-10, tL). The two writers are 
treating of different subjects. One is instructing a 
seeker respecting the means of salvation, the other 
is exposing a pretended believer. Substantially, 
James is treating of the kind of faith that saves. Or 
we may say that one apostle speaks of a sinner's jus- 
tification, the other of a Christian's,, two different 
justifications being meant. A Christian justifies his 
faith, proves it to be genuine, by works. 1 

g 223. Historical Review. 

Dr. Pope in his Compendium 2 gives a valuable 
and interesting account of the history of thought on 
this subject. We will merely indicate the points 
which deserve attention. One is the source of the 
error of the Roman Church in Augustine, who does 
not distinguish between justification and sanctifica- 
tion. "God justifies (man) not only by remitting the 
evil he has done, but also by bestowing charity, that 
he may forsake evil and do good -by the aid of the 
Holy Spirit." Another sentence is quoted, which 
seems to indicate a sense of the distinction. "Se- 
quuntur opera justificatum. non priecedunt justiu- 

la Works justify and perfect faith, not in the nature of the 
thing, bat in the sight of man, to whom they witness the liveli- 
hood and perfection of faith, not as causes, but effects and signs 
of our justification ; they are not only signs, but conditions con- 
comitant or precedent;" and more in Jackson on Creed. Bk. iv. 
sec. 1, ch. xi. folio ed. i. p. 6S6. also sec. 2, ch. vi. Owen, v. eh. 
xx. Owen argues that Paul and James have a different pur- 
pose, intend a different kind of faith, and speak of justification 
in a different sense. 2 Comp. ii. 418-451. 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION. 249 

candum." 1 A favorite distinction of the Middle 
Ages is between Fides informis, bare intellectual 
faith, and Fides formata charitate, faith informed by 
love. The latter is sanctifying faith, the former 
does not amount to justifying faith. 

Calvinism, which misplaces repentance and faith, 
makes justification a consequence of regeneration. 
According to it, man is first regenerated in fulfill- 
ment of an eternal decree, and then Christ's right- 
eousness, active and passive, is imputed to him. He 
is regenerated through union with Christ, and he is 
united to Christ by faith, which again is the gift of 
God. Some Lutheran teachers have followed Cal- 
vin in this order. 2 Arminians also have used erro- 
neous language. Thus Limborch speaks of Faith, 
"on account of which God is graciously willing to be- 
stow on man remission of sins and the reward of 
eternal life" (page 443). 

In a series of quotations, Dr. Pope shows that the 
practice of good men, who teach error, is often better 
than their creed. Augustine says: "Our righteous- 
ness is true, on account of the truly good which is be- 
fore it; but in this life it is so slight and impover- 
ished that it consists rather in the forgiveness of 
sins than in the perfection of virtues." "My sole 
hope rests on the death of my Saviour. His death is 

1 Luthardt ? Comp. p. 258. One is surprised to find Canon 
Noma saying that Augustine does not confound the two bless- 
ings (Rudiments of Theology, p. 297). Xo doubt the sentences 
he quotes seem to bear him out. But we cannot gather the views 
of the Fathers from detached sentences, but from the strain of 
their teaching. This seems here to be on the other side, 2 Pope, 
pp. 440, 441. 



250 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

my merit, my refuge, my salvation, my life, my resur- 
rection; my merit is the mercy of the Lord. He who 
doubts of the pardon of sin denies that God is merci- 
ful" (page 421). Anselm gives these directions for 
dealing with a dying' man: "Dost thou believe that 
thou canst not be saved but by the death of Christ? 
The sick man answereth, Yes. Then let it be said to 
him : Go to, then, and whilst thy soul abideth in thee, 
put all thy confidence in this death alone, place thy 
trust in no other thing, commit thyself wholly to 
this death, cover thyself wholly with this alone, cast 
thyself wholly on this death, wrap thyself wholly in 
this death. And if God would judge thee, say, Lord, 
I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between 
me and thy judgment, and otherwise I will not con- 
tend, or enter into judgment with thee. And if he 
shall say unto thee that thou art a sinner, say, I 
place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me 
and my sins. If he shall say unto thee that thou 
hast deserved damnation, say, Lord, I put the death 
of our Lord Jesus Christ between thee and all my 
sins; and I offer his merits instead of my own, which 
I ought to have but have not. If he shall say that 
he is angry with thee, say, Lord, I place the death of 
our Lord Jesus Christ between me and thy anger." 1 
But the most remarkable testimony is that of Bellar- 
min: "Because of the uncertainty of our own right- 
eousness and the danger of empty boasting, it is 
safest to place our whole trust in God's sole mercy 
and benignity. This only we say, it is safer to for- 
get merits, however obtained, and to look to God's 



!R 425; Shedd, ii. 281. 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION, 251 

mercy alone, both, because without revelation no one 
can certainly know that he has real merits, or will 
persevere in them to the end, and also because noth- 
ing is more easy in this scene of temptation than for 
arrogance to spring from contemplating good works" 
(page 434). 1 

For full details, see Dorner's History of Protest- 
ant Theology, two volumes. 

B. — REGENERATION. 

\ 224, Communication of the New Life. 
The nature and limits of this blessing are by no 
means so clear as in the case of its sister blessings. 
The very various definitions of it given in the Church 
are, in part at least, the consequence of the compara- 
tively slight treatment of it in Scripture. It some- 
times stands in theology for the outward rights and 
privileges of the Christian state, to which baptism is 
the introduction. But if this were all that is meant, 
it would be hard to explain the solemnity of Christ's 
teaching or the ground of Xicodemus's wonder in 
John iii. It cannot denote less than the beginning 
of a new inward, spiritual life. Taking it in this 
sense, others have only put a difference of degree be- 
tween it and sanctification. But if this be so, it is 
not a distinct blessing at all; it is merely another 
name for the first stage of sanctification, and two 
terms are needless. It seems better, therefore, with 
Dr. Pope (iii. 5), to limit the first term strictly to the 
communication of the new life, of which sanctifica- 
tion then takes charge. The new birth thus corre- 
sponds to natural birth. Regeneration is as deci- 

1 T. Goodwin, Object and Acts of Justifying Faith, vol. viii. 



252 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

sive and instantaneous a work as justification, and as 
little capable of degrees. 1 This interpretation also 
explains why the blessing is seldom named in the 
Scripture biography of the new life. 

§225. Scriptural Idea, 
The idea of a New Birth is only found in John iii. 
8 (compared with i. 12 ? 13) ; 1 John iii. 9, etc. ; Titus iii. 
5, which is of doubtful interpretation; 1 Peter i. 3, 23. 
Other figures, however, have been explained as hav- 
ing the same meaning — Creation, 2 Corinthians v, 
17; Ephesians ii. 10; Galatians vi. 15; Ephesians iv. 
24; Eesurrection, Romans vi. 4, 5; Colossians ii. 13, 
iii. 1; Ephesians ii. 5, 6; Renewal, Colossians iii. 10; 
Romans xii. 2; Ephesians iv. 23; Titus iii. 5. It is 
evident that a complete, radical change is meant, the 
Divine Spirit being the agent, the Divine Word the 
means. The psalmist prays for this blessing (Psalm 

li. 10). 

I 226. Adoption. 

Dr. Pope's view of Adoption differs from the ordi- 
nary one in annexing it to Regeneration rather than 
to Justification. It is the bestowal of the rights and 
privileges of the regenerate state. It is quite true 

1 "It is that great change which God works in the soul when 
he brings it into life ; when he raises it from the death of sin to 
the life of righteousness ": Wesley, Serm. xlv. He says it is 
wrong to speak of regeneration " as a progressive work, carried 
on in the soul by slow degrees, from the time of our first turn- 
ing to God. This is undeniably true of sanctification ; but of 
regeneration, the new birth, it is not true. This is a part of 
sanctification, not the whole; it is the gate to it, the entrance 
into it. . . . The same relation which there is between our 
natural birth and our growth, there is also between our new 
birth and our sanctification." 



THE EXPERIENCE OE SALTATION. 253 

that, like justification; adoption is a legal idea. Still 
it is a different legal idea. In one ease man is a 
criminal treated as righteous, in the other case he is 
a stranger treated as a child. Why should not the 
Second Birth carry legal privileges with it? It 
seems natural that privilege should follow state, not 
the converse. It will be observed that Adoption is 
St. Paul's word, the Xew Birth St. John's. And 
there can be little doubt that Paul is thinking more 
of privilege (Romans viii. 14-17). St. Paul uses both 
vlos and tUvov of the Christian, St. John only the 
latter, reserving the former for Christ. The term 
wtos rather connotes privilege and dignity, the term 
tUvov community of nature and the affection spring- 
ing out of the relation. The privileges are such as 
Filial Access to God (Romans viii. 15; Matthew vi. 
9) 3 Freedom (John viii. 32; Galatians iv. 5). the Pos- 
session of the Spirit (Luke xi. 13), Inheritance, Life, 
Glory, God. 1 

C. — SAXCTIFICATIOX. 

§227. Introductory. 
Sanctiflcation is the growth and perfecting of the 
new regenerate life. Holiness denotes the finished 

1 See Watson's Works, v. 149, xi. 24S. "The idea of ■ child/ 
as distinguished from ' son/ which does not occur in this con- 
nection in St. John except Rev. xxi. 7, is that of a community 
of nature as distinguished from that of a dignity of heirship. 
. . . . St. John dwells characteristically upon the commu- 
nication of a new life, while St. Paul dwells upon the gift of a 
new dignity and relation. T> T hen St. Paul brings out the new- 
ness of the Christian's being, he speaks of him as a new ' crea- 
tion.' The language of St. James (i. 18) and of St. Peter (1 Pet. 
i. 3, 23) corresponds with that of St. John'': Westeott, Speaker's 
Comm. on Gospel of St. John, p. 9. 



254 DOCTEINES OF BEDEMPTION. 

result of the process. We have to notice the Nature, 
Progressiveness, and Perfection of the blessing. 

§ 228, Nature of Sanctification — Negative Side. 

On its negative side it is the removal of evil from 
human nature, on its positive the creation or infu- 
sion of good, and especially of love to God and man, 
which is the sum of goodness (Romans xiii. 10). 

The negative work of purifying is expressed by 
KaOapt^ Ka6ap6<s, KaOapoT-qs, the words used of the 
cleansing of lepers, Matthew viii. 2, 3, x. 8, xi. 5, etc. 
In the spiritual application, the presence of evil is 
always supposed, 2 Corinthians vii. 1; Hebrews ix. 
14, 22, 23; 1 John i. 7, 9. 

§229. Positive Side. 
The positive side is expressed by the great word, 
occurring so frequently in the New Testament, ayios 
(" saints," 1 Corinthians i. 2, Ephesians i. 1, etc.; 

ayia£a>, ayiwcrvvY], ayiaoyxos), corresponding to the 

equally sacred term of the Old Testament, B^n D. 
See Ephesians v. 26 ; 1 Thessalonians v. 23 ; Hebrews 
ii. 11, ix. 13, x. 10, xiii. 12, etc. Whatever the deriva- 
tion of the word, the idea which it came to express 
was undoubtedly that of being set apart, consecrated 
to the divine possession and service. Inanimate 
things — places, vessels, buildings— were so set apart 
from common for sacred uses. They were God's, 
not man's. This idea was then transferred to hu- 
man beings, Exodus xix. 6. Moral was substituted 
for material excellence. According to Exodus xix. 
6, the whole of Israel was to be holy to God. The 
design was never realized, but it was God's purpose. 
The two ideas of Possession and Service then com- 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION. 255 

bine into the Priestly idea. The priests were God's 
possession (kA%)os) and servants, ministers waiting 
upon the Lord in his temple. All this is transferred 
to Christians, Titus ii. 14, Xabv Treptovcnov; 1 Peter ii. 
9, X. eU 7repL7roLr)(Tiv; Eomans xii. 1, vi. 13; 2 Corinthians 
v. 15; Ephesians v. 27; Revelation i. 6. This spiritual, 
universal priesthood of believers is the only human 
priesthood acknowledged in the New Testament. 

Whether we speak of sanctiflcation or consecra- 
tion, the act is God's. Dedication seems a better 
word to describe our act of self-devotion to the divine 
will. But why depart from the old usage, which 
speaks of God sanctifying man, and of man conse- 
crating himself? 

The " spiritual sacrifices" which Christians are to 
offer are all the duties of a Christian life, duties of 
gratitude, obedience, and worship to God, and of 
justice, truth, mercy to man. It is evident that they 
include the whole of human life, nothing is outside 
them or apart from them. It is only another way of 
stating the same truth, to say that a Christian offers 
himself to God, not a part of his life, but himself in 
all his thoughts, intentions, and acts. If a Chris- 
tian himself is God's, all his life is God's, all is re- 
ligious and sacred — business, time, study, intellect, 
wealth, influence. "In that day shall there be upon 
the bells of the horses, Holiness unto the Lord," 
Zechariah xiv. 20. No idea is more comprehensive 
or more practical than that of Christian holiness. 

§230. Is There a Direct Witness of the Spirit? 
Mr. Wesley thinks there is a direct witness of the 
Holy Spirit to the fact of sanctiflcation as to forgive- 
ness (Works, xi. 420). But neither the reasons he 



258 DOCTRINES OP REDEMPTION. 

gives, nor the quotations in support from Scripture, 
are quite convincing. The change wrought in the 
former blessing is in God's attitude to us, and re- 
quires, or at least admits, outward attestation. The 
change in the latter case is from first to last in us, 
and may be expected to "shine in its own light. " 
The passages of Scripture quoted are general in their 
terms. Xo one will question the possibility of this 
second direct witness. But its necessity is not so 
clear. Nor can it be said to be common. It has not 
been made prominent in Methodist teaching. 

§231. Christian Ethics, 
This would be the place for an exposition of Chris- 
tian Ethics, for what is ethics but applied holiness, 
the detailed working out of holiness in practical life? 
Martensen calls holiness "the last word of theology, 
the first of ethics/' The usual defect in the treat- 
ment of this subject is the failure to bring out the 
distinctively Christian aspects of ethical teaching. 
Christian ethics is to natural ethics as the Christian 
religion is to natural religion. Undoubtedly there 
is a morality that is independent of religion and re- 
ligious faith, a morality that is never to be thought 
lightly of. But Christianity brings man into new 
relations, out cf which arise new duties and senti- 
ments. It*also gives a new color, new sanctions and 
reasons, to old virtues and obligations. The prov- 
ince of Christian ethics is to bring out this side cf 
the subject into the clearest light. 1 The ethical 

1 Martensen, Christian Ethics, 3 vols.; Wardlaw, Christian 
Ethics ; Harless, Christian Ethics ; Dorner, Syst. Christ. Ethics ; 
Davison, Eern. Lect. " The Christian Conscience " [Smyth, Chris- 
tian Ethics; Wuttke, Christian Ethics, 2 vols.— J. J. T.] 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION, 257 

teaching, of which the New Testament is full, is 
charged with the religious and Christian spirit. 

g232. Progressiveness of Sanctification. 
The work of holiness, both on its negative and pos- 
itive side, as a dying to sin and a living to right- 
eousness, is a gradual one, 2 Corinthians vii. 1; 2 
Peter iii. 18. The new life grows to maturity. Scrip- 
ture implies and experience proves that the evil na- 
ture remains after conversion, held down, never al- 
lowed to emerge into act, in process of transforma- 
tion, but still there, and from time to time giving 
signs of its presence. Of course, as matter of pos- 
sibility, the work of inward holiness might be per- 
fected in the moment of conversion; we are speaking 
of what is the rule and what is according to analogy. 
God brings his works to perfection by degrees. Per- 
haps we may suppose that he does so because he 
would have the creature cooperate in the process, in- 
stead of doing all the work himself at a single stroke. 
Why should the highest work of all be an exception? 
The higher we rise in the scale of creation, the higher 
the order of being, the slower we find growth to be. 
After St. Paul has said (Romans vi. 11), "Reckon ye 
yourselves dead unto sin," he says (verse 12), "Let 
not sin reign in your mortal body." What necessity 
could there be for the latter exhortation, if the for- 
mer statement meant that sin was utterly destroyed? 
We must not take a single passage by itself, but con- 
sider the whole of St. Paul's teaching together. The 
state described in verses 2 and 11, "dead to sin," is 
consistent with the possibility of sin remaining, and 
with the necessity constantly to yield the members 
in service to God. If no danger of sin remained in 
17 



258 DOCTRINES or REDEMPTION. 

any shape or form, how is this language to be ex- 
plained? We pray to be forgiven our trespasses. 
What is the source and spring of these trespasses, 
which need forgiveness, if no inward evil is left? 
The apostle speaks of the destroying of sin as ••mor- 
tifying" and ••crucifying" the flesh, Eomans viii. 13; 
G-alatians v. 24 We do not see why the particular 
form of death, ••crucifying." should be chosen, ex- 
cept to mark its lingering nature. " Mortifying." in- 
deed, simply means killing in any way. Still, sud- 
den death is the exception, not the rule. Usually, 
and mercifully, dying is a slow process. And when 
it is the death of an evil nature that is in question, 
we should expect the process to be proportionately 

slow. 

I 233. A Practical Danger. 

The practical danger of saying that the work of 
sanctification is complete at conversion is that of 
lowering the idea of perfect holiness, and the danger- 
is a serious one. Tell the Christians of everyday life 
that they are already perfect, and their conceptions 
of the meaning of holiness and of the extent of its 
demands will be greatly narrowed, the motives to 
further effort will be weakened. Let the standard 
for the converted be set as high as possible, but let it 
be a standard still to be attained, not one "already 
attained." The difference in point of stimulus is 
immense. In practical life we find that those who 
look on themselves as ••already perfect" at conver- 
sion, abandon Church fellowship and means of grace, 
and relapse into selfish isolation and indolence. 

I 234. Mr. Wesley's View. 
Mr. Weslev. in his first Sermon, commenting on 



THE EXPERIENCE OE SALVATION. 259 

the words " Whosoever is born of God sinneth not/-' 
says that believers sin not habitually, willfully, by 
evil desire or by infirmity, i. e. } they are free from 
actual sin. But in Sermon xiv. he earnestly main- 
tains the necessity of repentance and faith in order 
to entire sanctification. The highest degrees of 
grace are to be attained by the same means as the 
lowest. He speaks of "the mischievousness of the 
opinion that we are tcholly sanctified when we are 
justified. It is true we are then delivered from the 
dominion of outward sin; and at the same time the 
power of inward sin is so broken that we need no 
longer follow or be led by it. But it is by no means 
true that inward sin is totally destroyed; that the 
root of pride, self-will, anger, love of the world, is 
then taken out of the heart ; or that the carnal mind 
and the heart bent to backsliding are entirely extir- 
pated." We believe that this statement is true to 
Scripture and the facts of experience. See also 
Sermon xiii. "On Sin in Believers." 

\ 235. Entire Sanctification Possible in the Present Life. 
The possibility and necessity of perfect holiness 
form part of the universal faith of Christendom. 
The only point on which Methodist doctrine goes be- 
yond that of other Churches is in earnestly main- 
taining its possibility in the present life. Some say 
at death, some say after death in an intermediate 
state of purification. Purgatory is a device for per- 
fecting the good and fitting them for the vision of 
God. But why at death or after death rather than 
before? What prerogative is there in time, or what 
power will be at work then that is not at work now? 
Tf there had been limitation or restriction, it would 



260 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

surely have been stated in Scripture. Tlie mere ab- 
sence of any such restriction is a presumption in fa- 
vor of the Methodist doctrine. 

We need go no farther than the first law of perfect 
love to God, given through Moses (Deuteronomy x. 
12), and renewed by Christ (Luke x. 27). ,This, with 
the second great commandment includes all that 
anyone meant or ever could mean by any phrase used 
on this subject — Christian perfection, entire sancti- 
fieation, perfect love, or perfect holiness. The law 
was surely meant to be kept. We do not keep it, but 
we might and ought. Mr. Wesley often says that his 
doctrine says no more than these precepts say. 1 The 
apostle must have expected his prayer in 1 Thessa- 
lonians v. 23 to be answered. See also Titus ii. 14; 
1 John i. 7, iii. 8, 9; Hebrews ix. 26; Ephesians iii. 14- 
21; Matthew v. 48. The Sermon on the Mount is a 
picture of moral and spiritual perfection, and we 
cannot suppose Christ to have given impossible pre- 
cepts, To think that our natural evil, our tempta- 
tions, or the circumstances of life, put obedience to 
God's law out of the question, is to make these supe- 
rior to the grace of God and the power of the Spirit. 
It is to limit what God has not limited — the virtue of 
the Atonement and the efficacy of faith. After de- 
scribing, if words can describe, a perfect religious 
character (Ephesians iii. 14-19), the apostle directs 
us to the power by which it is to be attained : "Unto 
him that is able to do exceedingly abundantly above 

1 "What is implied in being a perfect Christian? The loving 
God with all our heart, and mind, and soul, Dent. vi. 5": vol. 
xi. 387. " It is love excluding sin ; love filling the heart, taking 
up the whole capacity of the soul " : Serm. xliii. 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION. 261 

all that we ask or think, according to the power that 
worketh in us." 

I 236. Mr. Wesley's Own Account of His Teaching, 
Anyone who will read Mr. Wesley's own account 
of his teaching on this subject, in his two sermons, 
"Christian Perfection" and "The Scripture Way of 
Salvation/' 1 will see how careful he is to guard it 
against misunderstanding, self-deception, and abuse. 
He does not teach some impossible, absolute perfec- 
tion, one that excludes progress or makes falling 
away impossible, one that is independent of Christ 
and faith, of watchfulness and prayer, but one that 
is relative to our nature and condition, that is wholly 
derived from and dependent on God's grace in Christ, 
and therefore, instead of encouraging pride, is mere- 
ly another and the strongest motive to humility. 
A perfect character is one that is perfect in humility, 
as well as in every other grace. The two sermons on 
"Sin in Believers" and "The Repentance of Believ- 
ers" are especially clear and definite in their exposi- 
tion of the conditions and means of the higher bless- 
ing. 2 Repentance in this case means a sense of sin- 
fulness still remaining, a sense of its guilt in. itself, 
sorrow for it, and intense desire to be delivered from 
it. Faith means "a divine evidence and conviction" 
that God has promised such deliverance, is able and 
willing to make good the promise, and that he does 
it. Thus, sanctification in its completeness, like jus- 

x And still more his treatise on the subject, Works, xi. 366, 
" Plain Account of Christian Perfection," published separately 
(T. Woolmer). Mr. Wesley's most important sermons are pub- 
lished in a cheap form, " The Marrow of Methodism." 2 See also 
Serru. xiiii, vol. vi. 50. 



262 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

tification, is by f aith, not by works, by faith that it 
may be of grace. "By this token you may surely 
know whether you seek it by faith or by works. If 
by works, you want something to be done first, before 
you are sanctified. You think, I must first be or do 
thus or thus. If you seek it by faith, you may ex- 
pect it as you are; and if as you are, then expect it 
now. It is of importance to observe that there is an 
inseparable connection between these three points — 
expect it by faith, expect it as you are, and expect it 
now." 

I 237. Dr. Moziey's Criticism of Mr. Wesley's Qualifica- 
tions. 

The qualifications with which Mr. Wesley sur- 
rounded his teaching, and which most persons will 
think a merit, are made by Oanon Mozley the subject 
of sharp criticism. 1 Dr. Mozley makes much of Mr. 
Wesley's admission of the possibility of involuntary 
transgressions or mistakes in a state of perfection, 
as well as of Mr. Wesley's avoidance of the phrase 
" sinless" perfection. Of course, if Mr. Wesley had 
denied such possibility, and had favored the latter 
phrase, his teaching would have been still more re- 
pugnant to the critic. Indeed, such extreme teach- 
ing would have been instantly refuted by facts. 
Thus the whole question is whether a state, qualified 
in this way, deserves to be called perfect. Dr. Moz- 
ley evidently regards it as a sorry sort of perfection 
at best. "It is plain fhat a complicated state of the 
question like this, full of artificial and fine distinc- 
tions, and of balks to and checks upon both sides, is 

1 Lectures and other Theological Papers, " Modern Doctrine of 
Perfectibility." 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALTATION. 263 

not one in which a doctrine of perfection can proper- 
ly be put forward. A doctrine of perfection ought 
to be a simple transparent doctrine, otherwise it is 
not worth having." In other words, there is no per- 
fection but angelic and absolute! The admission of 
such qualifications as involuntary transgression is 
not fairly described as a "complicated" doctrine, 
"full of artificial and fine distinctions." Even the 
highest perfection possible to a creature, say angelic, 
would still have to be limited in comparison with the 
divine. Would such a statement be "complicated,'' 
"full of artificial and fine distinctions"? Mr. Wes- 
ley says: "I believe a person filled with the love of 
God is still liable to involuntary transgressions. 
Such transgressions you may call sins if you please; 
I do not." Would Dr. Mozley have called them sins 
in the strict sense? And if they are not, how are 
they a deduction from a state of moral perfection? 
Yet this qualification is said "to vulgarize and de- 
grade the very standard idea of perfection altogeth- 
er." Dr. Mozley also thinks that Wesley insists on a 
perfect Christian being taken by others at his own es- 
timate. "Wesley is always forcing his perfect men" 
upon the public. "This virtually gives any man 
whatever the right of declaring himself a perfect 
man, and throwing the onus proband i that he is not 
perfect upon others. They must prove some definite 
sin against him. . . . The objector is prevented 
then from all power of disproving the man's perfec- 
tion, provided he only abstains from open sins, and 
behaves with general fervor. The gift is vulgarized 
and degraded by the low standard of proof which is 
required for it." We quite agree that a profession 



264 DOCTRINES OE REDEMPTION. 

of the highest state of grace should be justified by 
corresponding fruit. But it does not follow that the 
fruit will be such as will commend itself to a worldly 
judgment. At what price does such a judgment as- 
sess the qualities which Christ puts first in the eth- 
ical scale, Matthew v. 3-12? Wesley does not say 
that a Christian can never be mistaken in his profes- 
sion, but only that, if he uses all the means, mistake 
is highly improbable, which is true. "Whence is it 
that some imagine they are thus sanctified, when in 
reality they are not? They do not judge by all the 
preceding marks, but either by part of them, or by 
others that are ambiguous. But I know of no in- 
stance of a person attending to them, and yet de- 
ceived in this matter. I believe there can be none 
in the world." Besides, the one who condemns may 
be in error. " k But he does not come up to my idea 
of a perfect Christian.' And perhaps no one ever 
did. or ever will. For your idea may go beyond, or 
at least beside, the scriptural account. It may in- 
clude more than the Bible includes therein, or. how- 
ever, something which that does not include. Scrip- 
ture perfection is, pure love filling the heart and gov- 
erning all the words and actions. If your idea in- 
cludes anything more or anything else, it is not scrip- 
tural ; and then no wonder that a scripturally perfect 
Christian does not come up to it" Another objec- 
tion of the critic is to the alleged possibility of so 
high a gift being lost, "which vulgarizes and empties 
the gift of reality/' Wesley may have been mis- 
taken in saying "it is an exceeding common thing for 
the persons to lose it more than once, before they are 
established therein." The probability seems to be 



THE EXPERIENCE OE SALVATION. 265 

strongly the other way. But we do not see at all 
how the simple possibility can be excluded, or how it 
"vulgarizes" the doctrine. While probation lasts, it 
must apply to every possession of man. May not a 
state of pardon be lost, and is it "vulgarized/ 5 by the 
possibility? But a state of perfect grace implies 
such a degree of insight and stability as seems to put 
man practically beyond the reach of danger. 

I 238. Anglican and Roman Concessions. 
The prayers in the Anglican liturgy, "Grant that 
this day we fall into no sin/" and "Cleanse the 
thoughts of our hearts, . . . that we may per- 
fectly love thee/' imply the whole "Modem Doctrine 
of Perfectibility,' 3 if they are understood in the nat- 
ural sense. The Roman Catholic Church holds the 
possibility of perfect sanctity on earth, but confines 
it to very rare cases and conditions. Its idea of 
sainthood and use of the term "saint" are quite dif- 
ferent from St. Paul's (1 Corinthians i. 2; 2 Corin- 
thians i. 1; Ephesians i. 1, etc.). This restriction of 
the idea and term has undoubtedly done great harm 
in encouraging the opinion that perfect Christian 
character is only possible under exceptional condi- 
tions, and in making such a wide distinction between 
" saints" and the "religious" and ordinary Chris- 
tians. The result must be to lower the average of 
Christian life. Still the admission that Christian 
perfection is possible is valuable. 

§ 239. Sinless Perfection a Non-Wesley an Phrase. 
"(1) Not only sin properly so called (that is. a vol- 
untary transgression of a known law), but sin im- 
properly so called (that is, an involuntary transgres- 



266 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

sion of a divine law. known or unknown), needs the 
atoning blood. (2) I believe there is no such perfec- 
tion in this life as excludes these involuntary trans- 
gressions, which I apprehend to be naturally conse- 
quent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable 
from mortality. (3) Therefore sinless perfection is a 
phrase I never use. lest I should seem to contradict 
myself. 5 ' (Wesley, xi. 396.) 

§ 240. Both. Gradual and Instantaneous. 
"Is this death to sin, and renewal in love, gradual 
or instantaneous? A man may be dying for some 
time; yet he does not. properly speaking, die till the 
instant the soul is separated from the body; and in 
that instant he lives the life of eternity. In like 
manner, he may be dying to sin for some time; yet he 
is not dead to sin. till sin is separated from his soul: 
and in that instant he lives the full life of love. And 
as the change undergone, when the body dies, is of a 
different kind, and infinitely greater than any we had 
known before, yea. such as till then it is impossible 
to conceive; so the change wrought, when the soul 
dies to sin. is of a different kind, and infinitely great- 
er than any before, and than any can conceive till he 
experiences it. Yet he still grows in grace, in the 
knowledge of Christ, in the love and image of God; 
and will do so. not only till death, but to all eternity. 
How are we to wait for this change? Xot in care- 
less indifference, or indolent activity; but in vigor- 
ous, universal obedience, in a zealous keeping of all 
the eommandments. in watchfulness and painfulness. 
in denying ourselves, and taking up our cross daily: 
as well as in earnest prayer and fasting, and a close 
attendance on all the ordinances of God. And if anv 



THE EXPEBIENCE OF SALVATION. 267 

man dream of attaining it any other way (yea, or of 
keeping it when it is attained, when he has received 
it even in the largest measure), he deceiveth his own 
soul. It is true, we receive it by simple faith; but 
God does not, will not, give that faith, unless we 
seek it with all diligence, in the way which he hath 
ordained. This consideration may satisfy those who 
inquire why so few have received the blessing. In- 
quire how many are seeking it in this way ; and you 
have a sufficient answer." (Page 402.) 1 

§241, Historical Review of the Doctrine. 

In Dr. Pope's Compendium (iii. 61-99) will be found 
an original and complete history of the doctrine of 
holiness in the Church, doing full justice to all ef- 
forts and movements in the right direction. The ac- 
count given of Methodist doctrine is succinct, yet 
full, pp. 88-99. Augustine admitted the possibility 
of Christian perfection : "And so we cannot deny the 
possibility of such perfection even in the present life, 
because all things are possible to God, whether those 
things which he does by his own will alone, or those 
the doing of which he has made dependent on the co- 
operation of his creature." "They cannot, indeed, 
find any such perfect man; yet it must not be said 
that God lacks the power so to assist human will that 
righteousness may be perfected (perficiatur) in every 
respect in man, not merely the righteousness which 
is of faith, but also that which will qualify us to live 
in his presence forever. For, if he should will that 
even now in some one corruption should put on in- 

1 See also Fletcher's Last Check to Antinomianism, Works, 
v. 413. 



268 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

corruption, and a man should live immortal amid 
the mortal, so that, all old things being at an end, 
the law in his members shall not contradict the law 
of his mind, and he shall discern God's presence 
everywhere as the saints will do afterwards, who 
will dare to affirm that he could not? But men ask 
why he does not do this; and they who ask forget 
that they are men." He thus questions the fact of 
such perfection having been realized. One reason 
he gives is curious. A state of imperfection is best 
for man, anything else would be unsafe (Pope, p. 73). 
Dr. Mozley greatly prefers Augustine's doctrine to 
Wesley's. 1 One ground of the preference is "that 
Augustine regards the perfect state in this life, 
should it ever be realized, as a miracle, and contrary 
to all the ordinary laws of God's working; Wesley 
regards it as only in keeping with, and consistently 
carrying out, the natural growth of Christian grace." 
But in what sense is perfect holiness miraculous or 
supernatural in which all holiness is not so? What 
other difference than of degree is there between the 
lowest and the highest state? The increase of spir- 
itual life is only miraculous in the same sense in 
which its beginning is so. 

The Ascetic and Mystical schools, with whatever 
defects, have rendered great service in asserting the 
claims of the spirit and keeping the thought of a per- 
fect life before the mind of the Church. Writers 
like a Kempis and Fenelon may be read with profit, 
if it is remembered that they only represent one side 
of Christian life. 

After referring to the Antinomian danger lurking 

1 Lectures, p. 174. 



THE EXPEEIENCE OE SALTATION. 269 

in Galvinist teaching, Dr. Pope says: "It is in its no- 
blest representatives a most mighty stimulant to 
the pursuit of personal perfection. Union with the 
Lord is the soul of their doctrine, of their ethics, and 
of their hopes; and, where the aspiration after fel- 
lowship with Christ has its full unhindered influ- 
ence, it excites an unbounded horror of sin and thirst 
for holiness." The idea of imputation applies also 
here. 

It is shown that in the Roman teaching on this 
subject truth and error are subtly and inextricably 
interwoven. The possibility of keeping God's law 
perfectly, and the non-sinful character of "venial" 
transgressions, are maintained. Nay, the first truth 
is exaggerated into the possibility of works of su- 
pererogation, as if the highest degree of excellence 
were not required by the divine law interpreted by a 
spiritual mind. "Counsels of perfection," so called, 
represent a higher degree of obedience to law, but 
they are still obedience. The doctrine of Purgatory 
is the provision made for perfecting the work of holi- 
ness in the great majority of the good. According 
to Roman doctrine, although "concupiscence," the 
evil principle, remains, it is not regarded as sinful. 
Xothing is said about its being extinguished or de- 
stroyed. 

I 242. Position of Methodism. 

Methodism has always made the destruction of in- 
bred sin part, and the chief part, of perfect holiness. 
At the same time this is kept in the closest connec- 
tion with the atonement as the power, and faith as 
the condition ; and who will set limits to either the 
one or the other? We believe that Methodism has 
not gone beyond the highest aspiration of the best 



270 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

Christians in all ages, either in its account of the 
blessing or in the prominence given to it. On this 
subject the saints of all Churches are in advance of 
theologians, and better represent the mind of Scrip- 
ture. Methodism simply puts their faith and expe- 
rience into formal statement, and gives it due promi- 
nence. To do this is part of its mission. 1 

III. THE AflSOBAXCE OF PERSONAL SALVATION. 

I 243. General Doctrine. 
Scripture expressly asserts, and all Churches hold, 
the fact of a witness of the Holy Spirit to the spirit 
of the believer. Romans viii. 16 : Galatians iv. 6. The 
only point of dispute is whether the witness is direct 
as well as indirect. 

| 244. Methodist Teaching of Direct Witness. 
Methodism teaches that there is a Direct Witness 
of the Spirit, in addition to the Indirect. Such 
teaching is at least justified by the passages re- 
ferred to. and Methodists think is the only teaching 
which satisfies the terms used by the apostle. If 
the first passage is rendered "bears witness to." in- 
stead of "bears witness with." the statement is even 
stronger. That our interpretation is not putting a 
strain on the passage, is shown by Ephesians i. 13.14, 
iv. 30. etc.. where the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a 
seal. The very purpose of a seal is to certify or give 
evidence. If. then. I have the Holy Spirit, as all 
true Christians have. I have a seal or evidence of my 
salvation. Joying and glorying in God ('Romans v. 

X T. Goodwin, Gospel Holiness in Heart and Life. "Works, vii. 
131; Swinnock, Christian Man's Calling, Works, vols, i.-iii. 



THE EXPERIENCE OF SALVATION. 271 

3, 11) implies certainty as its ground. Otherwise it 
is unjustifiable. See also 1 John iii. 24, iv. 13. The 
indirect witness, or that of our own spirit, being our 
own judgment on a comparison of our experience 
and life with God's law, is of slow growth, and may 
not always give undoubting certainty. It may in- 
deed be said that God's will may not be to give us 
such certainty. Yet the apostles and the Christians 
to whom they wrote had it. If it was not hurtful for 
them, how can it be so for us? If they needed it in 
order to the highest form of joyous obedience, do we 
not need it for the same reason? Besides, as has 
often been said, our adoption being an act of God to- 
ward us, 1 not an act of God in us, needs to be noti- 
fied to us by outward testimony. Certain knowl- 
edge of God's love to us is the spring of our love to 
him. Mr. Wesley defines this testimony as "an in- 
ward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of 
God directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a 
child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me and 
given himself for me; and that all my sins are blot- 
ted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God." "That 
this testimony must needs in the very nature of 
things be antecedent to the testimony of our own 
spirit, may appear from this single consideration: 
We must be holy of heart and holy in life before we 
can be conscious that we are so ; before we can have 
the testimony of our spirit, that we are inwardly and 
outwardly holy. But we must love God, before we 
can be holy at all ; this being the root of all holiness. 
Now we cannot love God, till we know he loves us. 
And we cannot know his pardoning love to us, till 

1 It is so eyen on Dr. Pope's view of its place : see ante, p. 252. 



272 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

his Spirit witnesses it to our spirit. Since, there- 
fore, the testimony of his Spirit must precede the 
love of God and all holiness, of consequence it must 
precede our consciousness thereof, or the testimony 
of our spirit concerning them." 1 Not that Mr. Wes- 
ley or Methodists would make such a direct testi- 
mony necessary to salvation or an ever-present mark 
of Christian experience. 2 There are Christians with- 
out it. It is a privilege open to all. Of course 
those who think that a state of suspense and fear is 
the best for a Christian, and that a profession of cer- 
tainty involves presumption and danger, denounce 
such a doctrine as the offspring of enthusiasm. As 
if it would be dangerous for a child to be certain 
of a parent's love, and therefore a parent ought to 
keep his children at a distance, in doubt and terror! 
"Ye have received, not the spirit of bondage, but the 
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father/' 

I 245, Fanaticism Guarded Against. 

Any danger of fanaticism is guarded against by 
the Indirect Witness, which is the evidence of our 
own consciousness and life. It is practically identi- 
cal with "the testimony of our conscience/" 2 Corin- 
thians i. 12. Mr. Wesley describes it as "a con- 

1 Sermons x. and xi., " The Witness of the Spirit." See Dr. 
Young's Fernley Lecture on the doctrine. 2 "When I say 
every believer may be assured of his salvation, I don't say 
that every believer is assured of it. Every one is to labor 
for it, but every one has not yet obtained it. Assurance 
is not of the essence of a Christian. A man may be a true 
child of God, and certainly saved, though he have not assur- 
ance. 5 Tis required to the bene esse, not to the esse of a believ- 
er": N, Culverwel, Discourses, 1654. 



THE EXPEKIENCE OF SALVATION. 273 

sciousness that we are inwardly conformed, by the 
Spirit of God, to the image of his Son, and that we 
walk before him in justice, mercy, and truth, doing 
the things which are pleasing in his sight." It may 
be thought that the first witness, giving direct cer- 
tainty, makes the second unnecessary. But the first 
is only for him who experiences it, it is no evidence 
to others. The second is both for the individual 
and others. One is instantaneous, the other grad- 
ual. 

$ 246. Full Assurance. 

The result of the twofold testimony is full Assur- 
ance, TrXrjpocfropLa, " plenitudo, abundantia, copia, ple- 
nissima persuasio, certissima fiducia/' x of faith, 
hope, and understanding (Hebrews x. 22, vi. 11; Co- 
lossians ii. 2), L e., faith, hope, and understanding at 
their highest point, 1 Thessalonians i. 5, and Bold- 
ness of Speech, both before man and God {irapp^uia^ 
Hebrews iv. 16). 

IV. CONDITIONAL PEESEVEEANCE. 
\ 247, Arminianisni and Calvinism, 
The point in debate between Arminianism and 
Calvinism is, whether the perseverance of believers 
is conditional or unconditional, or whether it is pos- 
sible for believers finally to fall away. The Calvin- 
ist view, like the idea of a limited redemption, is 
scarcely derived in the first instance from Scripture, 
but is a part of a general theory. The teaching of 
passages like John xv. 4, 6; 1 Corinthians ix. 27; He- 
brews iii. 14, iv. 11, vi. 4, x. 26, 35, 39 ; Jude 24; 2 Pe- 
ter i. 10. ii. 20, as well as the case of Judas, is dis- 

1 Grimm, New Testament Lexicon. 
18 



274 DOCTRINES OP REDEMPTION. 

tinctly in favor of the Arminian interpretation. 

David and Peter fell into sin. though they were after- 
wards restored. Romans viii. 29, 30 describes the 
successive steps or stages in the process of salvation 

in the case of the actually saved. Foreknew, "as 
them that love God." "The apostle's statements in 
this passage are limited to the class of persons al- 
ready doubly defined — <1) as those who love God, 
and (2) as those who are called according to his pur- 
pose. His whole subject is their predestination to 
glory: no opposite view concerning the ungodly, ho 
doctrine of an eternal reprobation, is even suggest- 
ed." 1 The conditions stated in other passages are 
here assumed. 

\ 248. Means of Security. 
At the same time it is unwise to dwell unduly on 
the perils of the Christian life. The means of secu- 
rity, the power and glory of Christ as a Saviour, the 
greatness and certainty of the divine promises, the 
unfailing efficacy of prayer, should be as earnestly 
set forth. No Christian need or ought to be over- 
come. Matthew vii. 7: Philippians ii. 12. 13; Colos- 
sians i. 11: Ephesians iii. 20; 1 Peter i. 5. v. 8-10; 
Jude 24. Cases of real apostasy are perhaps less 
numerous than is often supposed. 

1 Dr. GifFord in Speaker's Commentary on Eomans. 



CHAPTER XI. - 

THE CHURCH. 

$249. Ecclesiastical Definitions— $250. The Term Church en the 
New Testament— $251. Three Types of Church Polity— $252. Ar- 
guments For and Against— $253. New Testament Teachings— 
$254. The Place of the Laity— $255. The Four Notes— $256. Uni- 
ty— $257. Holiness— $ 258. Catholicity and Apostolicity— $259. 
Protestant Interpretation— $260. Unity as Related to Schism 
and Heresy— $261. Protestant Distinction of Visible and In- 
visible Church— $262. Two Vital Points— $263. Refutation of 
the First Point— $264. Refutation of the Second Point — $265. 
Weakness of the Whole Theory— $206. Difficulties in the 
Historical Evidence— $267. Expediency and Utility of Episco- 
pacy— $268. References in the Epistles— $ 269. Presbyters— $270. 
The Two Presbyterial Functions— $271. Transformation of 
Presbyter into Priest— $272. Deacons— $ 273. Deaconesses— $274. 
Free Scope of Scripture— $275. The Communion of Saints— $276. 
Definition— $277. Institution of the Sabbath— $27S. Christian 
Change of the Day— $279. Divine Authority of the Lord's Day— 
$280. The Two Rites— $281. The Term Sacrament— $282. Circumcis- 
ion and the Passover— $2S3. Baptism: Institution and Apostolic 
Practice— $234. Significance of the Ordinance— $ 285. Assumption 
of the Christian Name— $286. Baptismal Regeneration— $287. John 
hi. 5 Considered— $288. Titus hi. 5— $2S9. Cases in the Acts— $290. 
Practice of Christ and the Apostles— $291. Infant Baptism— 
$292. Benefits— $293. Mode of Baptism— $ 294. The Lord's Supper 
—$295. Passover and the Supper Both Commemorative— $296. Sig- 
nificance of the Lord's Supper— $297. Xot a Necessary Channel 
of Grace— $298. Renewal of Christian Profession— $299. Three 
Types of Doctrine— $300. The Roman Doctrine— $301. The Lu- 
theran Doctrine— $302. The Reformed Doctrine— $303. Baptism: 
The Roman View— $ 304. The Lutheran View— $ 305. The Reformed 
View— $306. The Lord's Supper: The Roman Doctrine— $307. Sub- 
stance and Accidents— $308. Sole Scriptural Authority Al- 
leged— $309. Growth and Consequences of the Roman Dogma— 
$310. The Lutheran Doctrine— $311. The Reformed Doctrine— 
$312. The Five Additional Roman Sacraments— $ 313. Literature. 

2 249. Ecclesiastical Definitions. 
The whole body of the saved, whose experience has 
just been described, constitutes the Church. Arti- 
cle xix. of the English Church [and Article xiii. of 



(275) 



276 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

the Methodist Church] defines the Church as "a con- 
gregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of 
God is preached and the sacraments are duly admin- 
istered according to Christ's ordinance," a defini- 
tion more suited to the Congregational than the 
Episcopal system. The Westminster Confession 
makes the Church consist of "all those throughout 
the world that profess the true religion, together 
with their children/' ch. xxv. 2. Both these defini- 
tions apply to "the visible Church." 

2 250. The Term Church in the New Testament. 

The term Church 1 (iKKXyo-ta) in the New Testa- 
ment seems to denote, (1) the whole body of Chris- 
tians in one city, Acts xi. 22, xiii. 1; Colossians iv. 
16, etc.; (2) a congregation, 1 Corinthians xiv. 19, 
35: in house, Romans xvi. 5; Colossians iv. 15; (3) 
the whole body of believers on earth, Ephesians v. 
23. It is significant that Christ himself only uses 
the word twice, Matthew xvi. 18, xviii. 17. His 
phrase is "the kingdom of heaven" or "of God," 
a phrase of wider and more spiritual import. Christ 
did not found his Church proper till Pentecost. He 
did it by the hand of Peter, thus fulfilling his prom- 
ise in Matthew xvi. 18. It is remarkable that all 
the elements of Church life are found in the second 
chapter of the book of Acts — common prayer and 
worship, the preaching of the Word, the two sacra- 

1 " Church" comes to us through the Teutonic races (Kirche, 
kirk) from the Greek term KvpcaKdg, 1 Cor. xi. 20; Eev. i. 10. 
Another set of terms (ecclesiastic, etc.) comes from the Eew 
Testament word tattyo'ia. Dale, Manual of Congregational Prin- 
ciples, p. 210; Blunt, Diet. Theol. " Church." 



THE CHURCH. 277 

menus, fellowship, the conversion of unbelievers, the 
edifying of believers. 

I 251. Three Types of Church Polity, 
In the course of time three types of Church polity 
have arisen. (1) Episcopaiianism. far the oldest, yet 
not as old in anything like its present form as its ad- 
vocates often claim. Its distinctive mark is the di- 
vision of the ministry into three orders — bishop, 
priest or presbyter, and deacon — the powers of ordi- 
nation and confirmation being reserved for the bish- 
op exclusively. 1 (2) Presbyterianism holds tena- 
ciously by one order of ministers, possessing equal 
rights and prerogatives. Its institution of ruling 
elders or presbyters is peculiar. In its series of ec- 
clesiastical courts the representative principle is 
very thoroughly carried out. 2 (3) Congregational- 
ism or Independency. In it each congregation forms 
a complete, self-governed Church, owning no human 
authority outside itself. The Churches form so 
many independent republics, without any attempt 
at confederation or connection in a formal way. The 
system is the perfection of simplicity, but it sacri- 
fices the great power of organization and combined 
action in Church life and work. 3 The second and 
third systems arose in the sixteenth century. Presby- 
terianism being due to the genius of Calvin. 

\ 252, Arguments For and Against. 
The argument for or against these several sys- 
tems may be based either on the ground of Xew Tes- 

1 Hooker, vii. 2, 3, 8. Rigg, Comparative View of Church 
Organizations. 2 Zvlacpherson, Presbyterianism (Clark V s Dale. 
Manual of Congregational Principles. 



278 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

tament authority and the example of New Testa- 
ment Churches, or on the ground of advantage and 
expediency, regard, of course, being had to the spirit 
and purpose of New Testament teaching. Formerly 
all three systems alike were advocated on the high 
ground of New Testament authority. The early 
Presbyterians and Independents, just as much as 
Episcopalians, maintained that they, and they only, 
conformed to New Testament teaching and prece- 
dent. In the present day all Presbyterians and In- 
dependents, as well as reasonable Episcopalians, 
take the other ground. The Roman Church and 
High-church writers, indeed, claim divine sanction 
and authority for their polity as much as for their 
doctrine, but the authority can only be indirectly de- 
rived from Scripture. On the ground of Scripture, 
perhaps there is most to be said for the third sys- 
tem, and least for the first. The elaborate arrange- 
ments of Episcopalianism are far removed from the 
simple details of Church life disclosed in the New 
Testament, and are manifestly the growth of a later 
age. The entire absence of organization, marking 
the third system, is much nearer the simplicity of the 
beginnings of Christian Church life. But this very 
fact is proof enough that the simple arrangements, 
which met the wants of a young community, could 
never have been intended to be a law to the Church 
in altogether different conditions. Accordingly, the 
advocacy of Congregationalism, as well as of Pres- 
byterianism, has moved to other and better ground. 
As for the claim of divine authority made for Epis- 
copalianism, it is put briefly thus: "It is quite true 
that episcopal jurisdiction and ordination, ecclesias- 



THE CHURCH. 279 

tical laws and regulations, such as we know, are not 
found in the New Testament. But Christ estab- 
lished the Church, put over it certain officers, and 
gave it full authority to make such laws and regula- 
tions as changing times and circumstances might re- 
quire. And our system has come in unbroken de- 
scent from Christ and the apostles, just as the Brit- 
ish constitution has come by development from Nor- 
man and Saxon days." This, of course, is the theory 
of Apostolical Succession, which we shall consider 
presently. Meantime, those who take this ground 
can never get over the fact that Christ and the apos- 
tles make little in their teaching of questions, of 
which, if this theory is true, they ought to have 
made much. Where in the Xew Testament is the 
order and polity of the Church, which in the Roman 
and High-church system is at least coordinate with 
doctrine, put on the same footing as doctrine? 
Where do the apostles speak like our modern 
"priests"? Where is there any indication of an in- 
tention on Christ's part to attach the vital impor- 
tance, which this theory attaches, to a definite Church 
order? No one has ever yet shown any teaching in 
the Xew Testament which bears the same relation 
to the constitution of the Church on the so-called 
Catholic theory as the teaching of the Xew Testa- 
ment on spiritual truth bears to the later dogmatic 
statements of that truth. We ask no more than 
this. We do not ask for all the orders of an episco- 
pal hierarchy in the Xew Testament. We only ask 
for its outlines, or for the authority to establish it 
and impose it on others. To whom was the author- 
ity given? To Peter or Paul? Show us where it is 



280 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION, 

even hinted that they were to transmit to somebody 
else power to make laws and regulations which they 
themselves did not make. 1 This is taken for grant- 
ed, because otherwise it would follow that they had 
made no provision for the permanence of their work. 
Taken for granted! Suppose, on the other hand, 
that we say it is taken for granted that if they had 
meant to transmit such tremendous power to other- 
hands — power equal to their own — they would have 
said so. There is surely much to be said for such a. 
supposition. The fact is. the whole Eoman and 
High-church theory of the Church is a series of 
taken-for-granteds. That Christ and the apostles 
had any such intention, that they expressed and car- 
ried out the intention, that the Eoman Church is the 
legal heir of the apostles, are all taken for granted. 
It is assumed that Christ must have had certain in- 
tentions, that certain forms and institutions were 
essential to the well-being of Christians; e. (/.. that 
without a standing, living interpreter of revelation, 

ia If St. Peter's seat or chair had been as the pole star, 
whereto our belief, as the mariner's needle, should be directed, 
lest we float we know not whither in the ocean of opinions ; 
were the bosom of the visible Church the safest harbor our 
souls in all storms of temptation could thrust into; this apos- 
tle (St. Peter) was either an unskillful pilot, or an uncharitable 
man, that would not before his death instruct them in this 
course for the safety of their souls, whose bodily lives he 
might have commanded to have saved his own. Had perpet- 
ual succession in his see, or apostolical tradition never inter- 
rupted, been such an Ariadne's thread, as now it is thought, to 
guide us through the labyrinth of errors, such was St. Peter's 
love to truth, that he would have so fastened it to all faithful 
hearts, as none should ever have failed to follow it, in following 
which he could not err": Dean Jackson, Bk. hi, ch. xxiii. 1. 



THE CHURCH. 281 

the truth would be lost in a wilderness of error; and 
then the whole theory is worked out with admirable 
completeness. These speculations remind us of the 
speculations of other theorists, as to how the world 
might have been constituted differently from what 
it is, speculations which the sober sense of Butler re- 
bukes so justly. There is just as much or as little 
reason for the assumptions of the free-thinking De- 
ists of Butler's days as for the Roman and Anglican 
theory of the Church of our days. 

g 253. New Testament Teachings. 
What we see clearly in the Xew Testament is that 
Christ and the apostles had a great spiritual end in 
view, the establishing and perfecting of God's king- 
dom on earth. For this end they set on foot certain 
means and agencies — the preaching of the gospel, 
the gathering of believers into Christian fellowship, 
their edification in character and life. Only two 
simple outward rites, setting forth spiritual truth 
and channels of spiritual grace, are enjoined. The 
X>articular form which these means took was deter^ 
mined by local circumstances. There is no intima- 
tion that this form is binding for all time. 1 As mat- 
ter of fact, there is no religious community that does 
not vary the incidental features of these means to a 
greater or less extent. Even supposing that the 
Episcopal or Congregational system conformed most 
nearly to the usages of the Xew Testament Churches, 
this would be no argument in its favor. 2 The excel- 

1 Dale, Man. of Congr. Principles, p. 4; Gregory, Holy Cath. 
Chnrch, p. 31. 2 " The Lord founded no order of priests, and 
just as little did he found a system of Church government. 



2S2 DOCTRINES 01 REDEMPTION. 

lenee of outward forms and regulations must be 
measured by their suitableness in particular circum- 
stances to promote the spiritual ends for which 
Christianity exists, and by nothing else. The wis- 
dom of the Church is to take and allow a large lati- 
tude in such matters in different countries and ages. 
Why should it be assumed that Church order : 
Church life must be of the same unvarying type in 
America. Europe. Africa. Asia, where the eonditi 
are so different? Is not every presumption the other 
way? What new Christian communities need is not 
so much rigid law and control as wise guidance 
Otherwise the new wine will burst the old skins. 1 

Evervthin^ Ivin? hi this srhere he left :o be share:! by the 
needs and circumstances of the time. Even the institutions 
established by the apostles for the guidance ci particular 
Churches are merelv mmer rests and examples, not a ciui- 

saleation. which again is not a legal one. tat a method of 
grace" : Thomasius. Christ: Person una W~erk. Part 3. p, -.;, ill. 
r Bk. iii. oz Hookers Peel. Pol. is an argument in favor of 

the necessity of polity and regiment in ah Churches may be 
them ah." This langaage is broad enough to cover ah our no- 

wealth or Church is there which maketh not. either at one time 
or another?" 



THE CHURCH. 283 

\ 254. The Place of the Laity. 
We have no difficulty in deciding that a system of 
Church government in which those who form the 
overwhelming majority of the Church have no voice 
is contrary to the spirit and aim of Christianity, as if 
the self-government which is good everywhere else 
were bad here; as if the final and perfect religion 
only trained men to the one duty of submission to 
human authority; as if the clergy were the Church, 
and the Christian laity had no rights and no inde- 
pendence. The account of the memorable council in 
Jerusalem in Acts xv. indicates a different course. 
It is true that in verse 6 we read that "the apostles 
and elders came together for to consider of this mat- 
ter." And yet from the phrase used in verse 12, "all 
the multitude," it is clear that the people were not 
excluded, unless we can suppose that the number of 
"the apostles and elders" could be called a "multi- 
tude." The words used in verse 22, however, settle 
the matter: "Then pleased it the apostles and elders. 
with the whole Churelu to send chosen men." The 
written message which they bring begins, "The apos- 
tles and elders and brethren, greeting." 1 

I. XOTES OF THE CHTJECH. 

I 255. The Four Notes. 

Putting together the Apostles' and Xicene Creeds, 
we have four such notes — Unity, Holiness, Catholic- 
ity, Apostolicity. Even if these terms and the mean- 
ings attached to them had been taken direct from 

1 D. D. Bannerman, Script. Doctr. of Church, Cunningham 
Lecture ; Dorner, Syst. Christian Doctr. iv. 333. 



284 ittrmum :j j.iizyi::; 

atei importan se could not have been 

att lied t<: them l;o Kigh-cimmm writers. As mat- 

tei c : fa :t. while there is 3. :e: :: m am : uu: >: : - ;::; ■ 

; 1 truth at the I -is of some of them, the phrases 

niselves and mm implication are ecclesiastical 

th d i] mail, like the creeds of which they 

are j 1 1 a The Roman an :Pr: aestaut :hr : ties of Am 

Church understand these : 

: 256, Unity, 

According to the erst, the U 11:77 is mm A am: 
- in the ase of a mnnicipal corporation or 

nation, The ihurch : m— m : lelmlte mambei 
of j ersons. I : 77 1 "77 a : : mm: 7 1; :A: or profession. 
to the same 77" imlmA:- and laws, 
imium in short, one community. The term ^nni- 
tv." let it be noticed, 7- ambAmom It ma.7 mean 
the internal harmem" m 1: mween the several 

: numerical unity minding plu- 

rality In the first sense we speak if the unity if . 
: -, in the se : : nd ■: : :he unity : : 7b; 3 The 7: st is 
the kind i hurch unity spoken of in our Lord's 
mm 7 an 1, for anything we can 

7 art from the second. The same 

hind if uuitv is meant in the epistles. The unity :: 
the E theory is the second : L &, a nnity 

i turn : : :-erta:n 77m': 7: of persons, wh: : : n- 
ute the sole existing Church. VThere is : unitv 
of this kind predicated of "he Church in the \m— 
Testament? Ah the unity stohen of there :\ mi- 
Am A 7"" "; A ; - -. ~";; 7. = . 77, x77 CIS, m.-m .. 
ha: A7:~- m. 7m ^"isi'zie CAimh am As; mum= :: 
ration . 7 m . 7 : nip. iiL 266. 



THE CHUECH. 285 

fectly consistent with the existence of separate 
communities. Such separate communities, called 
Churches .in a certain sense., may, when viewed in the 
aggregate, form the Church in the widest and high- 
est sense. The Anglican is the same as the Eoman 
theory. Only, the reality does not correspond to the 
theory. Anglicans are obliged to admit that the 
outward and visible unity, which they make one of 
the predicates of the Church, does not exist. Ac- 
cording to them, the Anglican ? Roman, and Greek 
Churches (or branches of the Church) together form 
the one Church, so that outward division, after all, 
is not fatal to Church life. They are as much sepa- 
rated outwardly as other religious communities. 
Where, then, is the visible unity, which they declare 
essential to the very existence of the Church? x 

§257, Holiness. 
Holiness, again, is understood as inherent in some 
sense in the visible community apart from the indi- 
viduals comprising it. There is a corporate as well 
as an individual sanctity. But it is difficult to con- 
ceive a holiness that is independent of individual 
character. If, as Bishop Pearson contends, a holy 
calling and obligation confers sanctity, wicked per- 
sons are holy in some sense, but a very unreal one 
I 258. Catholicity and Apostolicity. 
Catholicity is explained as the universal exten- 
di believe in the holy catholic Church.'' Does not "be- 
lieve " show that the reference is to the invisible Church, %. e., 
the whole body of real Christians in the world ? "I believe in 
the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, the life 
everlasting " — all unseen. Barrow, Unity of the Church (1818 
ed.), p, 495; Gregory, Holy Cath. Church, p. 140, etc. 



286 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

sion of a particular visible society, and Apostolicity 
as consisting in personal, lineal succession from the 
apostles. 

§259. Protestant Interpretation. 

Let us now turn to the Protestant interpretation. 
Ghurch unity consists of the oneness of faith and 
feeling and aim for which the Saviour prayed, and to 
which the apostles so often exhort. Such unity is 
perfectly compatible, as experience shows, with ex- 
istence in separate communities. In many cases, 
are not common moral aims, such as temperance and 
thrift, better advanced by separate action? Is not 
competition, within reasonable limits, a necessary 
check and healthy stimulus? It is a fact, which can- 
not be gainsaid, that the ages of the Church which 
were distinguished by outward unity were ages 
when the worst abuses and corruptions grew apace. 
The fact of such corruptions was lamented by many 
who did not adhere to the Reformation. And unless 
outward unity is plainly commanded, outward di- 
vision is no sin. The best way to secure real unity 
would be the universal acknowledgment that the 
holding of vital truth, along with holiness of life, is 
the note of the Christian Church, and that all other 
matters should be relegated to a secondary place. 
On this basis all Christians in the world might meet 
and work together. 

The Holiness of the Church is the aggregate of 
the holiness of its members. All other holiness is 
merely nominal. When members of the Church are 
addressed as "saints," it is implied that their lives 
bear out the profession. The parables of the Tares 
and the Net are often quoted in support of the laxer 



THE CHUECH. 287 

view, which makes Church membership partially in- 
dependent of personal character; but with little rea- 
son. The tares are to be tolerated either when they 
cannot be distinguished or cannot be removed with- 
out injury to the wheat. And the Protestant theory 
of the Church has never said anything to the con- 
trary. It simply says that when the tares are dis- 
cernible and can be removed, nay, when they cannot 
be tolerated without grave scandal, they should be 
removed. The parable applies to those cases in 
which human tests and judgment are at fault, not to 
others. The opposite doctrine would logically re- 
quire the toleration of any and all evil, and abolish 
the distinction between the Church and the world. 

The note of Catholicity is fulfilled by the universal 
extension if the Church in its widest sense, i. e., in 
any of its several branches. Apostolicity may be 
conceived of as a likeness to the apostles in doctrine, 
instead of lineal succession. But of this, more pres- 
ently. 

\ 260. Unity as Related to Schism and Heresy. 

The view taken of the Unity of the Church deter- 
mines the meaning of Schism and Heresy. 1 Indeed, 
the modern meaning of these terms, separation from 
the Church and false doctrine, grew out of the view 
of the Unity first mentioned. The terms are used in 
a different sense in Scripture, and the modern one 
has been grafted on to that sense. Schism occurs 
six times in an ethical application (John vii. 43, ix. 
16, x. 19; 1 Corinthians i. 10, xi. 18, xii. 25; see Mat- 

1 Pope, Comp. iii. 270; Gregory, Handbook of Scriptural 
Church Principles, Pt. i. p. 110; Blunt. Diet. Theol. "Scttism." 



288 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

thew ix. 16), where it means dissension, division, 
party, or school within a body, which, of course, may 
issue in separation. Heresy is used in 1 Corinthians 
xi. 19 almost synonymously with schism. General- 
ly, it means "sect" (used of Pharisees, Sadducees, 
Xazarenes, or the early Church, Acts v. IT; xv. 5; 
xxiv. 5, 14; xxvi. 5; xxviii. 22). In this sense it 
has not the opprobrious tinge now belonging to it. 
The derivation of the word suggests that what is 
condemned is a willful, obstinate temper, "a self- 
chosen view," something very different from wrong 
teaching or difference of view, except in so far as the 
latter springs from a wrong spirit. See also Gala- 
tians v. 20;' Titus iii, 10; 2 Peter ii. 1. Accordingly, 
we regard the present divisions of the Church as di- 
visions within, rather than separations from the 
Church, and hold that the blame, so far as matter of 
blame exists, rests with those whose narrowness, ex- 
clusiveness, or erroneous teaching makes such divi- 
sions necessary. "The term ' divisions' signifies not 
schisms, as in the marginal rendering, but dissen- 
sions; not separations from the Church, but dissen- 
sions within the Church." 2 Of course, if the apostle 
condemns the one, he would still more condemn the 
other; then the above remarks apply. "The Greek 
sehismata may be literally rendered by our word 
splits in the modern sense, as 'splits in the cabi- 
net/ marked dissensions threatening disruptions. It 
should be remembered that this epistle says nothing 
of separation into sects, but speaks of partition into 
schools, as Pauline, Apolloite, Petrine, Christine; it 

1 Canon Evans in Speaker's Comm. on 1 Cor. i. 10. 



THE CHUKCH. 289 

describes an arrogant party spirit, tending, indeed, 
to a breach of outward unity, but not yet sundering 
the bond." 1 "Not heresies in the sense of ' false doc- 
trines,' nor sects as in the margin of the A. V. The 
word in Greek means ' self-chosen view/ differing 
from received opinions": Ibid. 

I 261. Protestant Distinction of Visible and Invisible 
Church. 

The Protestant confessions recognize a distinc- 
tion between the Visible and Invisible Church, 
which Roman teaching repudiates. The Invisible 
Church consists of all the really saved on earth, 
known only to God, and is not necessarily coinci- 
dent with the Visible Church. All attempts, and 
many have been made, to make the two coincident 
must fail; but this is no reason why the visible 
should not be the closest approximation possible to 
the invisible. In other words, the wisest and most 
faithful application of the best tests will never se- 
cure an absolutely pure Church, but that is no argu- 
ment against the use of tests. Rather it is an argu- 
ment in their favor. If strictness often fails, laxity 
must be still worse. Unless purity is the aim, the 
reason of the Church's existence falls to the ground. 
In the heavenly state the visible and invisible 
Church are one, everyone is what he seems. 2 

[For a very full discussion of the Xotes of the 
Church, see Summers, Systematic Theology, ii. 225- 
244.— J. J. T.] 

1 Canon Evans in Speaker's Comm. on 1 Cor. xi. 18. 2 The 
High- church theory is set forth in Blunt, Diet. Theol., art. 
" Church," "Apost. Succession," etc. 
19 



290 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

II. THEORY OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

I 262. Two Vital Points. 

Two points are vital in this theory : (1) that only 
ordination by bishops makes a real minister of 
Christ, giving authority to absolve from sin and ad- 
minister sacraments; and (2) that the only bishops 
are those who are appointed in direct, unbroken suc- 
cession through the bishops of Koine, from the days 
of the apostles. All others are pretenders. Apostol- 
ical succession is the real mark of the true Church, 
far more vital than the notes before mentioned. 
This is the doctrine held in common by the Eoman 
Church and the High Anglican school, for the two 
stand on the same ground up to the Keformation. 
It is through the bishops or popes of Rorae that An- 
glicans derive their authority. The theory is worked 
out most completely in the Roman Church. The 
Anglican Church is burdened not merely with the 
difficulties of the Roman case, but with the break at 
the Reformation. The break, indeed, is denied by 
the Anglican, though asserted by the Roman. Still 
the former has to show that the authority was valid- 
ly transmitted through the changes of the Reforma- 
tion time. 

\ 263, Refutation of the First Point. 

"Only ordination by bishops makes a true minis- 
ter of Christ, with power to absolve from guilt and 
administer sacraments." There is not a trace in the 
Xew Testament of bishops as a separate order, with 
exclusive right to ordain. This is now so generally 
acknowledged that there is little need to illustrate 



THE CHURCH. 291 

it. In the New Testament, bishop and presbyter or 
priest are one, the first being a title taken from 
Greek life, the second from the Jewish synagogue; 
ef. Acts xx. 17, 28. Unless they are one, the presby- 
ters are passed by in the salutation in Philippians i. 
1. Cf. also Titus i. 5, 7; 1 Timothy iii. 1, 8. In the 
last passage also St. Paul mentions bishops and dea- 
cons only. The New Testament bishops or elders 
rule the Church (Acts xxi. 28; 1 Timothy iii. 5; 1 Pe- 
ter y. 2), but do not rule ministers. In the Jerusa- 
lem council we read of "apostles and elders" (xv. 6, 
22), not bishops and elders. Timothy was ordained 
by presbyters, "with the laying on of the hands of 
the presbytery," 1 Timothy iv. 14. St. Peter exhorts 
"the elders" only, calling himself a "fellow-elder," 
1 Peter v. 1. It is somewhat singular that the apos- 
tles knew nothing of the distinction of orders that is 
a vital element of "apostolical" succession. 1 

The distinction between bishops and presbyters 
grew up afterwards, how soon or how long after is 
of no concern to our argument. It is not apostolic 
or scriptural. Whatever may be supposed or prob- 
able as to the first germs of episcopacy, in the mod- 
ern sense, being in accordance with the apostolic 
mind or spirit, that is a long way short of proof; 
and the amount of probability will vary to different 

minds. 

I 264. Refutation of the Second Point. 

"The only bishops are those regularly appointed 
in succession from the apostles." According to the 

1 The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles knows only of "bish- 
ops and deacons. It says, "Elect for yourselves bishops and dea- 
cons " : ch. xv., translation by Eev. H. de Romestin. 



292 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

complete theory, it was the divine purpose that 
Christ should have a successor, and that successor is. 
and always has been, the Bishop of Koine; and also 
that the apostles should have successors, and the 
bishops of the two Churches named are the succes- 
sors. We want proofs of the divine purpose, and of 
its actual fulfillment. Surely it is reasonable to ex- 
pect that the scriptural authority for so tremendous 
a position shall be as clear and full as that for the 
doctrines of the Trinity and Atonement. Where is 
it? In Matthew xvi. IS? Granting that the refer- 
ence is to Peter personally, we see an ample fulfill- 
ment when Peter in Christ's name founds the Church 
at Pentecost, and admits Jews and Gentiles into it: 
Acts ii. 41, x. 11-18, xv. 7. Bengel well asks. Quid 
here ad Romam? To make these words mean that 
Peter took Christ's place, that he was invested with 
supreme authority over the other apostles and the 
Church, that he was intended to transmit it to oth- 
ers, and did transmit it, is not interpretation, but 
arbitrary assertion. Where did he ever claim such 
authority? When was it acknowledged by others? 
The binding and loosing power given to Peter in 
verse 19 is at least given equally to all the apostles 
in chapter xviii. IS. The words in John xx. 23 about 
the power of remitting and retaining sins, however 
they are to be interpreted, were spoken to "the dis- 
ciples." verse 19. which phrase, according to the par- 
allel account in Luke xxiv. 33, includes "'the eleven 
and them that were with them." i e„ the disciples 
generally, the Church, not the apostles merely. 
Moreover, if the bishops were the designed succes- 
sors of the apostles, whv was the name changed? 



THE CHURCH. 293 

Why was the ancient and scriptural term "apostles" 
discarded for " bishops?" 1 

§ 265. Weakness of the Whole Theory. 
It is here that the weakness of the whole theory is 
found. If we could be shown that it was ever the 
divine purpose that the Church should be consti- 
tuted in this way, and in no other, we might be will- 
ing to assume a great deal as to the fulfillment, and 
to explain the deficiency of evidence by the scanti- 
ness of early records, as we do on other questions. 
But it is not so. There is no doctrine of the Church 
in Scripture, standing in the same relation to the 
Eoman and Anglican dogma, as the doctrine of the 
Trinity bears to the dogma of the Trinity, or as the 
teaching about the Lord's Day and Baptism in 
Scripture bears to the belief and practice of the 
Church on these questions. 

\ 266, Difficulties in the Historical Evidence. 
This being so, we have a right further to point out 
the difficulties in the historical evidence. The pres- 
ence of Peter at Rome as bishop, and the transmis- 
sion of his office to successors, are quite unproved, 
and indeed uncertain at the best. 2 It is needless to 

1 Hooker, Bk. vii. 4, argues that bishops are the successors of 
the apostles. The proof given is slender enough. He jumps 
from Scripture to Cyprian and the opinions of the later Fathers. 
However, Bks. vi., vii., and viii. of Hooker are suspected of in- 
terpolation, like some of the witnesses for episcopacy. On the 
whole subject see Barrow's Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy, 
ed. 1818, vol. vi. 2 "The attempt to decipher the early history 
of episcopacy in Borne seems almost hopeless, where the evi- 
dence is at once scanty and conflicting " : Lightfoot, Christian 
Ministry, p. 215. Clement of Eome, writing " probably in the 



294 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

refer to later links in the chain, to the great schisms, 
when there Y^ere several popes at once, to the heresy 
of popes Liberius and Honorius, which was con- 
demned by the Council of Constantinople in 680, and 
to the infamies of popes like John IX., XIII., XXII., 
XXXIII., and Alexander VI. The heresy* of the 
two popes will be denied. Archbishop Trench, a 
High-churchman, had no doubt about it. These 
cases, he says, are " sufficient to defeat the claim to 
infallibility." 1 He says also: "For fifty years and 
more (904-962), the election to the throne of St. Peter 
lay in the hands of three infamous women, a mother 
and her two daughters. The moral outrages which 
this time beheld are not to be told, nor shall I at- 
tempt to tell them." 2 And yet Dr. Trench's own or- 
ders came through this channel. Granting that the 
foulness of the channel need not affect the official 
authority transmitted through it, it is a hard neces- 
sity for good men to be forced by a theory into asso- 
ciation with such characters. The validity of the 
Anglican ordinations depends on the question 
whether Archbishop Parker's ordination was valid. 3 
The debate lies between Roman and Anglican, and 
we need not interfere in it. We will only remark 
that on the theory of apostolical succession the Ro- 
man Church is in the best position. If the theory is 
true, if there is no true Church without this mark, 

last decade of the first century, though he has occasion to speak 
of the ministry as an institution of the apostles, mentions only 
two orders, and is silent about the episcopal office." " He still 
uses the word l bishop ' as a synonym for presbyter " : Barrow, 
Pope's Supremacy (ed. 1818), p. 137. * Mediaeval Church Histo- 
ry, p. 154. 2 P. 114. On Liberius, see Jackson, Bk. xii. ch. xvii. 
6 ; Honorius, ii. 14. 5. [ 8 See Cooke, Historic Episcopate. — J. J. T.] 



THE CHURCH. 295 

the Eoman Church is best off. The Anglican may 
be right, the Eoman must be right. 1 

I 237. Expediency and Utility of Episcopacy. 
With the episcopal system, when it is advocated 
on the ground of human authority, of expediency 
and utility, we have no quarrel. We recognize its 
advantages as well as its defects. The growth of 
such an organization was inevitable and of immense 
advantage in the early centuries. Dr. Lightfoot, 2 
while giving up the ground of Scripture authority for 
the distinction of order between bishops and presby- 
ters, is naturally anxious to push the rise of the dio- 
cesan episcopate as far back as possible. Though 
he could never be unfair, he often sees more in some 
of the earliest officers and offices of the Church than 
others can see. It is easy to speak of the "episco- 
pate" of James and Simeon at Jerusalem (p. 206), 
but what sort of an episcopate? The episcopate of 
Acts xx. 28? Or diocesan episcopacy? Or some- 
thing between the two? To the latter view there 
can be little objection. A presbytery, or college of 
elders, borrowed from the synagogue, would natu- 
rally require a head, perhaps a permanent head or 
president, a primus inter pares. 3 This president 

1 See also An Essay on Apostolical Succession, by Thomas 
Powell, Wesleyan minister, 2d ed. 1840, an able and racy essay; 
Moberly, The Great Forty Days, pp. 151-191, on the Papal Su- 
premacy [For Latin text of Leo XIII.'s adverse decision on the 
validity of Anglican orders, see Civilta Cattolica, Oct. 3, 1896; for 
an enumeration of the grounds of the decision, see The MethodiM 
Review, pp. 458, 459, Jan. 1897.— J. J. TJ. 2 " The Christian Min- 
istry,'' Ep. to Phil. 3 " Eather the chief of the presbyters than 
the chief over the presbyters," said of Clement of Eome, Light- 
foot, Essay, pp. 219, 225. " If bishop was at first used as a syno- 



296 DOCTRINES OF EEDZXPTION. 

would have an official superiority, which by slow 
growths became eventually a distinction of order. 

Xothing is more likely than thai some of the later 
writers referred to by Bishop Lightf oot transfer the 
ideas of their own times to earlier times. "As early 
as the middle of the second century, all parties con- 
cur in representing St. James as a bishop in the 
strict sense of the term,-' p. 206. If "the strict sense 
of the term" means the modern one, we doubt 
whether it can be proved by unexceptionable testi- 
mony that this was the sense of the term "as early 
as the middle of the second century." Some of the 
"parties" quoted in the note (Clementine Homilies 
and Recognitions, Apostolic Constitutions) are not 
very trustworthy. St. Ignatius is ''the recognized 
champion of episcopacy." or rather the great witness 
tor episcopacy, but he is a witness who has been ex- 
tensively tampered with. We doubt whether even 
yet the ''true" has been separated from the false Ig- 
natius. The extravagance of his language is more 
than suspicious. We have just seen that Clement, 
writing in the last decade of the first century, men- 
tions only two orders, and is silent about the episco- 
pal office; and yet Ignatius, writing shortly after- 
wards. 1 speaks in the most dogmatic way about 
••'the three orders of the ministry, the bishop, the 

nym for presbyter, and afterwards came to designate the higher 
ofrice under whom the presbyters served, the episcopate, prop- 
erly so called, would seem to have been developed from the sub- 
ordinate office, In other words, the episcopate was formed not 
out of the apostolic orders by localization, but out of the presby- 
terial by elevation ; and the title, which originally was common to 
all. came at length to be appropriated to the chief amonsr them ": 
p. 194. l u During the earliest years of the second century " : p. 208. 



THE CHUECH, 297 

presbyters, and the deacons." At the same rate of 
development, we should have expected to see the 
whole papal college and hierarchy in half a century 
more. There is no use in accumulating references 
to " bishops" in the beginning and the middle of the 
second century, unless there is evidence to show 
what kind of bishops is meant. It is far more prob- 
able that the earlier kind is meant than the later. 

III. CHUECH OFFICES. 
§268. References in the Epistles. 
In the references to these offices in the epistles 
(Romans xii. 6, 7; 1 Corinthians xii. 28; Ephesians iv. 
11), there is no attempt at exact and complete state- 
ment. Presbyters and deacons are not mentioned 
by name. "Teachers," " pastors and teachers," most 
probably stand for the first, indicating their func- 
tions. "Helps" and "ministration" may denote the 
second. Apostles, prophets, and evangelists were 
evidently not meant for permanence; else why did 
they not continue? If the office of apostles was 
meant for permanence, how is it that we do not read 
of the apostles having taken steps to appoint their 
successors? The only two offices which continued, 
and so proved that they were meant to do so, were 
those of the presbyter and deacon. 

§269. Presbyters. 
It is not a little remarkable that there is no ac- 
count of the institution of the office. Both the office 
and term were evidently taken from the arrange- 
ments of the Jewish synagogue. The Jewish pres- 
byter or elder had two functions, those of teaching 
and ruling. Each elder would, of course, exercise 



298 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

the one for which he was best fitted. Some would 
possess both orders of gifts. This explains 1 Tim- 
othy y. 17: "Let the elders that rule well be counted 
worthy of double honor, especially they who labor 
in the word and doctrine." Dr. Binnie, in his expo- 
sition of the Presbyterian office of ruling elders, 1 says 
the passage "is most naturally understood as imply- 
ing that, while all the elders ruled, some of them did 
not teach." This may be so, but it by no means fol- 
lows that the ruling eldership was erected into a dis- 
tinct office as in Presbyterianism. The terms are 
quite explained by supposing that each elder did the 
work for which his peculiar gifts best fitted him. 
Dr. Binnie is right enough in pointing out that in 
New Testament days each local Church had a plural- 
ity of elders, following the example of the syna- 
gogue. "The apostolic plan of assigning a plural- 
ity of rulers to every Church, and the prelatic plan of 
assigning a plurality of Churches to every ruler, are 
as contrary as can be imagined." Such deviations, 
found in all communities, are covered by the princi- 
ple laid down by Dr. Binnie: "The Church, being a 
divinely instituted society, possesses the rights com- 
mon to all societies, and, among the rest, the right of 
electing appropriate officers, with authority to act in 
its behalf," p. 126. 

\ 270. The Two Presbyterial Functions. 

The two presbyterial functions are referred to in 
Scripture: "teachers," 1 Corinthians xii. 28; "pas- 
tors and teachers," Ephesians iv. 11. So, again, He- 
brews xiii. 7, 17; Romans xii. 8. In the Pastoral 

iThe Church, p. 129, Clark's Handbooks. 



THE CHURCH. 299 

Epistles, where Church organization is more promi- 
nent, the office is presented in the same light, 1 Tim- 
othy iii. 1-7; Titus i. 5-9. All elders are equal. Dis- 
tinctions of office and function among them are quite 
consistent with this equality. High-church writers 
constantly write of Timothy and Titus as bishops 
of Ephesus and Crete. But there is not a word or 
hint in Scripture to show that they possessed or ex- 
ercised any authority but that of ordinary elders. 
Timothy had received "the gift" that was in him Wk by 
prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery," not by episcopal ordination in the mod- 
ern sense. His presbyterial ordination gave him au- 
thority to take oversight of the Church at Ephesus. 
To Titus the apostle says: "For this cause left I 
thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the 
things that were wanting, and appoint elders in 
every city, as I gave thee charge," i. 5. Titus is to 
complete the work begun by the apostle. How can 
a modern bishop be made out of this? After Titus 
has discharged his temporary mission in Crete, he is 
to meet the apostle at Xicopolis in Epirus, iii. 12. 
Strange to direct a "bishop" to leave his diocese so 
soon ! Titus went into Dalmatia, which is north of 
Nicopolis, 2 Timothy iv. 10. To say that they were 
bishops without the name is to say that they were 
not bishops. 

\ 271. Transformation of Presbyter into Priest. 
Of all the transformations that history has wit- 
nessed, none is more complete or startling than that 
of the New Testament presbyter, with the simple 
function of religious instruction, into the priest in 
the sacerdotal sense. The process of transforma- 



300 DOCTEINES OF REDEMPTION. 

tion is carefully traced by Bishop Lightfoot in his 
essay on "The Christian Ministry/' appended to the 
Commentary on Philippians, pp. 242-266. The term 
for the sacrificing priest in the Old Testament is the 
Hebrew colien and Greek lepevs, which is quite dis- 
tinct from presbyter, and is never connected with it 
in the New Testament. Yet by degrees the sense of 
the former has been bodily transferred to the latter, 
for our word "priest" is simply "presbyter" writ 
small. 1 If sacrifice had been among the functions of 
the presbyter, how is it that it is ignored in St. Paul's 
account of the office in the Pastoral Epistles? Ac- 
cording to the modern theory, this is not a secondary, 
but the essential w r ork of the office, and yet it is 
passed by in silence. How 7 is it that in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, w r here the Old Testament priesthood 
and sacrifices and their New Testament analogues 
are expounded, no mention is made of a Christian 
taking the place of the Jewish priesthood? Christ 
is the only priest spoken of. 2 It is incorrect to say 

r " Whether we call it a Priesthood, a Presbytership, or a 
Ministry, it skilleth not: although in truth the word Presbyter 
doth seem more fit, and in propriety of speech more agreeable 
than Priest with the drift of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ. 
. . . The Holy Ghost, throughout the body of the New Tes- 
tament making so much mention of them, doth not anywhere 
call them Priests": Hooker, v. 78. 4. 2 "This apostolic writer 
teaches that all sacrifices had been consummated in the one 
Sacrifice, all priesthoods absorbed in the one Priest. The offer- 
ing had been made once for all; and as there were no more vic- 
tims, there could be no more priests. .~ . . The epistle deals 
mainly with the office of Christ as the antitype of the High 
Priest offering the annual sacrifice of atonement; and it has been 
urged that there is still room for a sacrificial priesthood under 
the High Priest. The whole argument, however, is equally ap- 



THE CHUECH. 301 

that this is an argument from silence; for the offi- 
cers of the Christian Church are frequently men- 
tioned, and sacrificing priests are not among them. 
It is remarkable that there is no sacerdotalism in 
the writings of the Apostolical Fathers, though the 
topics treated of would naturally require reference 
to it 3 if it had existed. The same is true of Justin 
Martyr, and Irenseus, and Clement of Alexandria. 
"Irenaeus, if he held the sacerdotal view, had every 
motive for urging it, since the importance and au- 
thority of the episcopate occupy a large space in his 
teaching. Nevertheless, he not only withholds this 
title as a special designation of the Christian minis- 
try, but advances an entirely different view of the 
priestly office. He recognizes only the priesthood 
of moral holiness, of apostolic self-denial/' p. 251. 
Tertullian and Origen are the first to use sacerdotal 
terms of the true Christian ministry, and this, of 
course, implies that they were not alone in such use. 
Still the idea cannot have gone very far in their 
days, for the former strongly affirms the universal 
priesthood of believers, and the latter gives the 
terms the same general meaning and application. 
Cyprian is the first to transfer the sacerdotalism of 
the Old Testament broadly and boldly to the Chris- 
tian Church, and from his days the idea grew apace. 
The most probable view is that it was imported from 
heathenism, not from Judaism, the Jewish priest- 
hood being afterwards used to support it. If Juda- 
ism had been the source of Christian sacerdotalism, 
it would have appeared in the earliest days and in 

plicable to the inferior priesthood; and in one passage at least 
is directly so applied (x. 11, 12) ": Lightfoot, p. 263. 



302 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

the East; for it was then and there that the Jewish 
element in the Church was strongest. As matter of 
fact, it was in the West, where the influx of heathens 
into the Church was greatest, that the sacerdotal 
view spread most widely. It is evident that the 
heathen converts were unable to shake off the sacri- 
ficial notions in which they had previously moved, 
and brought them into the Church. Two circum- 
stances accelerated the growth of the theory: first, 
the early attachment of the idea of sacrifice in a spe- 
cial sense to the Eucharist; and, secondly, the paral- 
lel between the three orders of the Christian minis- 
try and the Jewish high priest, priests, and Levites. 
"So entirely had the primitive conception of the 
Christian Church been supplanted by the sacerdotal 
view of the ministry before the northern races were 
converted to the gospel, and the dialects derived 
from the Latin took the place of the ancient tongue, 
that the languages of modern Europe very generally 
supply only one word to represent alike the priests 
of the Jewish or heathen ceremonial, and the pres- 
byter of the Christian ministry," p. 244. There is 
nothing objectionable in the representative view of 
the Christian ministry, the minister representing 
man to God and God to man. But this is not priest- 
ism or sacerdotalism in the sense of the Eoman or 
Anglican theory. The latter has been described as 
"vicarial," in distinction from representative. 

£272. Deacons. 

Though the term "deacon" does not occur in the 

account of the appointment of the Seven (Acts vi. 

1-6), the ancient and general view is that the Seven 

were the first deacons. The duties in both cases are 



THE CHURCH. 303 

the same. The qualifications for the office are de- 
scribed at length, 1 Timothy iii. 8-13. This office 
soon underwent great modifications in the early 
Church. At the present time it would be hard to find 
any office in the Church exactly corresponding to the 
Xew Testament diaconate. Perhaps the nearest is 
the deacon of the Congregational polity. The Angli- 
can deacon is simply a presbyter on probation. The 
episcopal system has no permanent order of deacons. 
Singularly enough, "minister," which is equivalent 
to " deacon, " has come into use instead of presbyter. 
\ 273. Deaconesses. 

It is doubtful whether there was any order of Dea- 
conesses in the Xew Testament Church. Romans 
xvi. 1 may be meant in a general sense. The other 
passages sometimes quoted in this connection are 
certainly to be understood differently (1 Timothy iii. 
11, v. 9; Titus ii. 3). Woman's work in the Church 
is not organized as it might be and ought to be, 
at least within Protestant Christendom, and thus 
much power is lost. 1 

\ 274. Free Scope of Scripture. 

Free scope is left in Scripture for the adoption of 
new and the adaptation of old agencies of Christian 
w r ork. Comparing the later with the earlier epis- 
tles, we see that the new life of the Church at once 
created for itself new forms of activity, some con- 
servative, some aggressive. Their spontaneousness, 
their variety, the changes they underwent, are the 
charter of the Church's liberties. The test of insti- 
tutions and organizations is their power to conserve 

[ 1 But great advance has been made of recent years in this 
regard in American Methodism. — J. J. T.l 



304 DOCTRINES OE REDEMPTION. 

the purity of Christian life, and extend the domin- 
ion of Christian truth. In early Church history, 
again, we see the same freedom exercised in the use 
of Church forms and agencies. The early Church 
was the most flexible of institutions in its outward 
forms. Xot only bishops, presbyters, and deacons, 
but graye-diggers, janitors, readers, sub-deacons, are 
spoken of as separate orders; Cyprian ordained read- 
ers and sub-deacons. We claim simply the same lib- 
erty in things constitutional and ceremonial that 
was exercised by the early Church. We fail to dis- 
coyer that the early Christians any more set them- 
selyes up as legislators to the Church for all time 
than we do. 

No one can read such passages as Eomans xii. 4-8: 
1 Corinthians xii. 4-11, xiy., without seeing that the 
fixed offices of the early Church were far from repre- 
senting the whole of its actiyity. Each Christian 
had a gift of some kind, which he was expected to 
use in God's seryice. The epistles rebuke excess 
and abuse in the exercise of these spiritual gifts, but 
no more. They would no doubt haye just as ear- 
nestly condemned their suppression. Apollos is a 
busy, actiye figure in the Church, but there is no in- 
timation that he held any office. We haye supposed 
it probable that Titus was a presbyter, but there is 
no eyidence on the point. In later days Justin Mar- 
tyr's is a similar case. He did the work of a mis- 
sionary eyangelist both by word and pen; yet there 
is no record of his haying held office in the Church. 

§ 275. The Communion of Saints. 
A chief feature of Methodist Church economy is 
the fuller proyision it makes for Church fellowship. 



THE CHUKCH. 305 

"The coruinunion of saints" is an article of the Apos- 
tles' Creed 1 which has found little practical expres- 
sion. It has no doubt entered more or less into 
Christian life, and is incidentally present in com- 
mon worship. Still its importance is such as to de- 
mand more formal recognition. It has quite as 
good scriptural warrant as the " notes" of the Church 
mentioned above. The first Christians " continued 
steadfastly in the apostles' fellowship.-' The apos- 
tle thanks God for the fellowship of the Philippians 
in the gospel. Christians are often exhorted to edi- 
fy one another, teach and admonish one another, 
speak to one another in psalms and hymns, confess 
their faults one to another, and pray one for an- 
other. Such precepts are not met by public instruc- 
tion merely. They require something more formal 
and intimate; besides, they imply mutual action. It 
is quite true that they are, or may be, kept in the 
daily intercourse of Christians. Still there must be 
great advantage in making provision for the recog- 
nized, systematic exercise of fellowship. Mutual ed- 
ification seems the needful supplement of public. 
The necessity and the benefit of religious fellowship 
are perhaps still more strikingly set forth in the 
apostle's favorite comparison of the Christian com- 
munity to a body, Eomans xii. 4, 5; 1 Corinthians 
xii. 12; Ephesians iv. 15, 16. The love feast is a re- 
vival of a primitive custom, which soon fell into dis- 
use in early days. 2 

1 Introduced into the creed, with the term u catholic," in the 
sixth century. See Lumby's History of the Creeds. 2 Gregory, 
Fern. Lect. on Holy Catholic Church, p. 75. 
20 



306 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

IV. WORSHIP— THE LORD'S DAY. 

§276. Definition. 
The Lord's Day (Revelation i. 10) is the Jewish 
Sabbath in Christian form, filled with Christian eon- 
tents. To the idea of rest is added that of worship. 
The sacredness is not lessened, but increased, in- 
creased in proportion as the facts commemorated 
and the truths declared are higher and more spirit- 
ual than those of the earlier dispensation. 

§ 277. Institution of the Sabbath. 
A point in dispute is whether the Jewish Sabbath 
was instituted at Creation or at Sinai. There is cer- 
tainly nothing in Genesis ii. 1-3 to intimate that the 
reference is proleptic. If so many ages intervened 
between the fact commemorated and the commemo- 
rative institution, if the Sabbath was Judaic, not pa- 
triarchal, we might reasonably expect some indica- 
tion of this in -Genesis. It is true there is no men- 
tion of the observance of the Sabbath afterwards 
in Genesis. But we must remember the great 
brevity of the narrative, as well as the unlike- 
lihood of regularly occurring observances being 
spoken of. There is no mention of the Sabbath in 
Judges, Joshua. 1 and 2 Samuel. 1 Kings, after the 
Sinaitic legislation. Is the gathering of the double 
supply of manna in Exodus xvi. also proleptic? 
The need for a fresh announcement of the ancient 
law may have arisen during the Egyptian captivity, 
when religious observances must have fallen into 
neglect. The fact of creation commemorated and 
the need of rest are not specially Judaic, but of uni- 
versal application. 



THE CHUKCH. 307 

But even if this point were conceded, the inser- 
tion of a positive law like that of the Sabbath in 
the Decalogue has great significance. Though it 
does not convert a positive into a moral precept, it 
raises the positive command, so treated, far above 
the crowd of specially Judaic laws. 

The presumption, then, is all against the Sabbath 
being abolished by Christianity. Christ does not 
destroy, he fulfills, L e., he gives something better. 
He meets universal needs more fully and effectually. 
He never by word or act violated the Mosaic law of 
the Sabbath, but only disregarded the rabbinical 
misinterpretations of that law. The real Sabbata- 
rianism is the spirit that would place the positive 
above the moral, mint, anise, and cummin above jus- 
tice, mercy, and faith, Matthew xxvii. 6; John 
xviii. 28. 

I 278. Christian Change of the Day. 

It may be said that when the Sabbath was trans- 
ferred to Christian ground, the observance on the 
seventh day should have been transferred with it, 
and that we have no formal announcement of any 
change in this respect. But any candid person will 
admit that the particular day cannot be of the es- 
sence of the law. There is, indeed, no formal notice 
of the change of day. But there are plain indica- 
tions of the change in practice, Acts xx. 7; 1 Corin- 
thians xvi. 2; Bevelation i. 10. The simple fact of 
the absence of any definite beginning of the new 
practice proves that it goes back to the earliest days 
of the Church. If the change had been made after- 
wards, either by authority or general agreement, we 
should find some mention of it; but there is none. 



80S DOCTEIXES OF BEDE3IPTIOX. 

The observance of the first day and the reason of it 
are as old as Christianity, or as old as the Church. 
When we are told that we receive the Lord's Day on 
the authority of the Church, we ask when and where 
the Church made any law en the subject. Outside 
Scripture, the historical tradition of the observance 
from the days of the Apostolic Fathers 1 is undoubt- 
ed and unbroken. 

I 27S. Divine Authority of the Lord's Day. 
If the proof of the divine authority of the Lord's 
Day is not as direct as in the case of the Jewish Sab- 
bath, the indirect proof is very strong. This proof 
is supported by the argument from necessity and 
utility in reference to the highest interests of the in- 
dividual and the race, and especially in reference to 
spiritual life and religious worship. Every blow 
struck at the Lord's Day is a blow struck at these. 
The allusions in Eomans xiv. 5. 6. Colossians ii. 16, 
are to Jewish distinctions, "meat or drink, feast day. 
new moon, sabbaths." The Judaizing party, whom 
the apostle is opposing, wished, of course, to import 
the Seventh-day Sabbath, along with circumcision 
and other Jewish rites, into the Christian Church. 
where the Lord's Day had become the law. The 
apostle did not object to the voluntary observance of 
any of these rites: he only opposed their imposition 
by authority on others. 

V. THE TTTO SACRAMENTS. 

A. — SCEIFTTEZ DOCTRIXE. 

I 280. The Two Rites. 
It is remarkable that two rites so simple as Ohris- 

*The Lord's Lav, by Eev. J. VT. Thomas, pp. 103-113: T. 
TToolrner: Smith. Bible Diet. "Lord's Dav" "Sabbath." 



THE CHURCH. 309 

tian Baptism and the Lord's Supper were, at first, 
have grown into the most complicated questions of 
Christian theology; that rites intended to be bonds 
of union have given rise to fiercer controversies and 
wider divisions than any other subject. 

\ 281. The Term Sacrament. 

The term sacrament itself (a sacred thing, an oath 
consecrated by religious rites) is not taken from 
Scripture. Sacramentum is used in the Vulgate as 
equivalent to (iwrrypvov in Ephesians i. 9, iii. 9, v. 32; 
1 Timothy iii. 16; Eevelation i. 20, xvii. 7. The asso- 
ciation of the two words reminds us of the early ap- 
plication of the term "mysteries" to the Lord's Sup- 
per, an application which undoubtedly did much to 
foster the notion of mysterious virtues attaching to 
the rite. 

I 282. Circumcision and the Passover. 

We do not see how it is possible to avoid the con- 
clusion that the Jewish rites of Circumcision and the 
Passover are the starting point of any discussion of 
the Christian ordinances. The analogy is support- 
ed both by a consideration of their nature and by 
their association in Scripture. In both cases one 
rite initiates a relation, which the other renews and 
conserves. 1 Differences in detail, such as the an- 
nual celebration of the Passover, do not destroy the 
general analogy any more than the still greater dif- 
ference in the significance of the rite does. As in 
the case of the Lord's Day, what Christianity has 
done is to enrich and elevate the old, to fill it with 
higher meaning and ideas. A fundamental feature, 

1 Hooker, v. 67. 1. 



310 DOCTRINES OF EEDEMPTION. 

in the Jewish and Christian ordinances alike, is that 
they are covenant acts. In circumcision, as in bap- 
tism, cleansing is the central truth signified. The 
ideas of commemoration, thanksgiving, communion, 
sustenance, are common to the Passover and the 
Christian Supper. Let it not be alleged that the 
Jewish rites had little or nothing of a religious mean- 
ing. Was not Judaism a religion as well as a na- 
tional polity? Did not the Jews stand in the same 
relations to God, and need the same blessings, as 
Christians? The political or national meaning of 
the rites was over and above the religious. If the 
rites are emptied of religious meaning, the same 
process must be applied to the whole of the Old 
Testament. The occasion of the institution of the 
Lord's Supper shows conclusively that it was the 
Passover transformed and applied to a new purpose, 
Matthew xxvi. 17. St. Paul evidently connects cir- 
cumcision and baptism (Colossians ii. 11, 12). The 
connection, however, is sufficiently shown by the 
similarity of the two rites, one introducing into the 
Jewish Church, the other into the Christian, Mat- 
thew xxviii. 19. From the Jewish ordinances we 
learn the elements necessary to constitute a sacra- 
ment. Circumcision and the Passover were divinely 
instituted; they were of permanent and universal 
obligation; they were significant of essential reli- 
gious truth. The additional sacraments of the So- 
man Church lack one or other of these features. As 
matter of fact, the definitions of a sacrament given 
in Protestant confessions apply to circumcision and 
the Passover; these were signs and seals, and so 
means of grace. The difference here is the same that 



THE CHURCH. 311 

obtains between the Jewish and Christian dispensa- 
tions generally, one of degree rather than of kind, in 
fullness of spiritual blessing and clearness of knowl- 
edge. 1 The covenant character of the ordinances 
must always be kept in the foreground. 

1 283. Baptism: Institution and Apostolic Practice. 

The formal words of institution are found in Mat- 
thew xxviii. 19, although Christ's disciples baptized 
before, John iv. 2. How the apostles interpreted 
Christ's words is best seen in their teaching and ac- 
tion, Peter at Pentecost, Acts ii. 38, 41; the Samar- 
itans, viii. 12, 16; the Ethiopian treasurer, yiii. 38; 
the baptism of Cornelius and his Gentile friends, x. 
47, 48; of Saul of Tarsus, ix. 18; of Lydia and her 
household, xvi. 15; of the Philippian jailer and his 
household, xvi. 33; of the Corinthians, xviii. 8; of 
John's disciples at Ephesus, xix. 5. 

I 284. Significance of the Ordinance. 
Let us see what this ordinance must have meant 
in the light of its Jewish counterpart. Circumci- 
sion was the sign and seal of a covenant of spiritual 
blessing. 2 To make the covenant refer merely to 
temporal good is to degrade not only it, but the 
whole of Old Testament teaching. Was not Abra- 
ham's faith reckoned to him for righteousness, and 
was not righteousness part of the covenant pledged 
by this sign? But was the experience of these bless- 
ings independent of all conditions? Certainly not. 
The insistence on moral conditions is just as em- 

1 Hooker on Sacraments, v. 58. 2, etc. 2 See Abraham's case, 
Rom. iv. 10, 11. 



312 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

phatic in the Old Testament as in the New. The no- 
tion that any outward rites — sacrifices or anything 

else — could save without moral amendment, is the 
very notion which the prophets unanimously and 
constantly denounce. "And the Lord thy God will 
circumcise thine heart." Any other teaching would 
be immoral in the extreme. Plainly the rite preached 
to the Jews — in act instead of in word, to the eye in- 
stead of the ear — the necessity of inner purity, and 
the offer of the blessing by God. Performed in the 
case of adults, it would generally coincide with their 
conversion to God, and ratify that conversion by a 
divine pledge. In the case of infants, it was a sign 
of the same truths, of a spiritual change necessary. 
and of grace given to effect that change in connec- 
tion with the fulfillment of the conditions after- 
wards. At the least, it was the seal of a gracious 
relation into which the individual was brought with 
God, a relation which meant much or little, accord- 
ing to the reception it found. Just as circumcision, 
on its first institution, was performed in the case of 
adults (Gen. xvii. 23-27), so baptism, in the first mis- 
sionary stage of the Church, was administered to 
adult converts, as we see in the Acts; but neither in 
the one case nor in the other does this prevent the ad- 
ministration of the ordinance in the case of infants. 
The application to Baptism is obvious. In the 
use of water the truth signified is still clearer. Au- 
gustine calls a sacrament a verbum visibile. It 
preaches the whole gospel to the eye. Sin in its 
guilt and indwelling is defilement, forgiveness and 
sanctification are cleansing. Baptism in the name 
of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost declares the divine 



THE CHURCH. 313 

source of the cleansing. In the case of adults the 
rite will generally coincide with the reception of the 
spiritual gift, ratifying it as a seal. In every case it 
declares the need of such grace, the divine provision 
and the conditions of its experience. It recognizes 
the individual as within the covenant of grace, as 
one to whom all the provisions of the covenant ap- 
ply. But such an act does not and cannot super- 
sede the moral conditions necessary; rather these 
conditions are among the truths of the gospel signi- 
fied by the rite. In adults, submission to the rite 
signifies the fulfillment of these conditions. It may 
be said that such a view makes the value of Baptism 
depend entirely on subjective conditions. But it is 
not so. It is a sign and seal of objective grace. The 
question is, What is the grace? Is it actual salva- 
tion, apart from all conditions? Only one answer is 
possible. God, indeed, gives much grace independ- 
ently of all conditions, which, duly used, will lead to 
salvation; and of this grace Baptism is in any case 
the pledge. It may then be asked, What is the prac- 
tical use of Baptism in such a case? "Much every 
way." Is the coronation of a sovereign or the ordi- 
nation of a minister of no practical force? To call 
it a mere recognition is plainly too little. It is a 
ceremony without which the official character is 
incomplete. The right may be inherent on other 
grounds, but it is formally declared and ratified. 

§285, Assumption of the Christian Name. 
On its human side Baptism is an assumption of 
the Christian name and profession. In the case of 
adults the profession represents, or should repre- 



314 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

sent, the character. In the case of children the po- 
sition is different- The grace needed and received 
is measured by the capacity of infancy and child- 
hood, and is given, so to speak, in anticipation. Con- 
version is necessary, but it may be gradual and im- 
perceptible, one degree shading into another. It is 
often so; perhaps it ought to be always so. Allow- 
ing for the perversity of the human will, perhaps the 
failure of parents who bring children to Baptism, 
and of the Church which receives them, to realize 
the responsibility and blessing of the act is the 
reason why conversion does not generally take this 
form. In adults Baptism is a seal of a conversion 
accomplished; in infants it is a prophecy of conver- 
sion to come. And the prophecy is to be accom- 
plished through instruction, example, and counsel. 

\ 286. Baptismal Regeneration. 

Kegeneration is sometimes understood in a sense 
which would allow of its being made to depend on 
Baptism as a means, namely, as an introduction to 
the outward privileges of the Christian Church. But 
this meaning is too weak for such a term. It is not 
the meaning of Scripture, or of those who hold Bap- 
tismal Regeneration in the proper sense. The priv- 
ileges of a child follow the character of a child. Is 
this character necessarily imparted by baptism? 
The question has been already practically answered 
by anticipation. Such an unconditional bestowal of 
the highest spiritual blessing is even more incon- 
ceivable under the Christian than the Jewish dispen- 
sation. It would be a retrogression from the spiric 
to the flesh. 



THE CHURCH. 315 

§ 287. John iii, 5 Considered. 
John iii. 5 is quoted in support of the doctrine. 
It is by no means absolutely certain that baptism is 
referred to. Such reference is possible, for baptism 
was already practiced, John iii. 26, iv. 2. But baptism 
is not named, xind it is quite possible that the pas- 
sage is to be interpreted in the same way as Mat- 
thew iii. 11, i. e., that the operation of the Spirit is in 
one passage compared to fire, in the other to water. 1 
But even granting the reference to baptism without 
reserve, the two baptisms are not necessarily con- 
nected ; it is not said that the birth of water and the 
birth of the Spirit always go together, or that one is 
the cause of the other. 2 The two are simply de- 
clared necessary; but the fuller exposition of the 
two things must be sought elsewhere. And, in any 
case, the birth "of water" is useless without the 
birth "of the Spirit." 

§ 288. Titus iii. 5. 
Titus iii. 5 is also quoted. Granting again that 

1 But see Hooker, Bk. v. 59. "Many have held that the 
birth 'of water and spirit ' can only refer to Christian baptism; 
others have denied that Christian baptism is alluded to at all. 
. . . There is error in both extremes. There is no direct ref- 
erence here to Christian baptism; but the reference to the 
truths which that baptism expresses is distinct and clear": 
SchafPs Popular Commentary on John iii. 5. The same view 
is taken of the relation of John vi. to the Lord's Supper. " In 
neither case is the sacrament as such brought before us; in both 
we must certainly recognize the presence of its fundamental 
idea": p. 86. 2 "As the new birth is not the same thing with 
baptism, so it does not always accompany baptism; they do not 
constantly go together. A man may possibly be e born of water/ 
and yet not be ' born of the Spirit ' " : "Wesley, Serm. xlv. 



316 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

"the washing'' or "layer of regeneration" means 
baptism, which is by no means certain, the same rea- 
soning applies. It is not enough alone, being con- 
nected with "the renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
They are not stated to be inseparable, or to stand in 
the relation of cause and effect. Gentile converts 
would be adults, and in their case baptism would 
follow as a seal of the spiritual renewal they had 
undergone. 

\ 289. Cases in the Acts. 

We have actual cases in the Acts in which the out- 
ward rite and the spiritual blessing are separated. 
Cornelius and his friends had received the Holy 
Ghost before baptism. In their case, therefore, the 
rite was the seal or completion of a blessing already 
experienced. Peter asks: "Can any man forbid 
water, that these should not be baptized, which have 
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Acts x. 47. 
In Acts viii. 12-17 we have the reverse order. The 
Samaritans under Philip's preaching believed and 
were baptized. But they did not receive the Holy 
Ghost then; for Peter and John, coming afterwards, 
"prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy 
Ghost; for as yet he was fallen upon none of them; 
only they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus." These cases prove demonstrably that the 
two things are separable. 

Peter's exhortation. "Kepent. and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Ghost" (Acts ii. 38). bears out our position. 
He is preaching to adults, he insists on the moral 
condition. " Repent; 93 the baptism would avail noth- 



THE CHURCH. 317 

ing without the repentance. The baptism would 
follow as an outward and visible sign of an inward 
and spiritual transaction between them and God. 
This is a typical instance of what must frequently 
have taken place in the earliest stages of Christiani- 
ty. The outward profession and the inward trans- 
formation would often coincide in point of time. 

\ 290. Practice of Christ and the Apostles. 

The place which baptism assumes on this theory 

is irreconcilable with the practice of Christ and the 

apostles. "Jesus himself baptized not" (John iv. 

2). If it be said that the Spirit was not yet given, 

what can be made of Paul's boast, "I thank God that 

I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius"? (1 

Corinthians i. 14, etc.) The apostles must have 

spoken and acted very differently, if they had held 

this theory. 

\ 291. Infant Eaptism. 

Baptists take a different view from the rest of the 
Christian Church respecting both the subjects and 
the mode of baptism. According to them, baptism 
is a formal profession of faith in Christ for salva- 
tion, and is therefore only applicable in the case of 
adults. The words of Christ in Matthew xxviii. 19, 
and the fact that most, they say all, the baptisms re- 
corded in the Acts are adult, are appealed to. The 
reply has been indicated already, namely, that 
Christ's command has special reference to the mis- 
sionary work of the Church, and the baptisms of the 
Acts belong to the same stage. But this no more 
precludes the administration of baptism to infants 
than the application of the Jewish rite to adults in 
the first instance, and in the case of adult converts to 



318 DOCTBINES OF REDEMPTION. 

Judaism, precluded its application to infants. What- 
ever objections are made against the Christian rite 
might be made against the Jewish one. The reply, 
of course, is that the Jewish rite conveyed only tem- 
poral or national privileges. This position we have 
already examined. If God's covenant with the Jews 
was religious, it pointed to spiritual blessings. And 
still more, if Christianity excludes children from 
God's kingdom, it puts them in a worse position 
than Judaism did. Can that have been the inten- 
tion of Him who blessed little children, and com- 
manded them to be brought to him? We fail alto- 
gether to see that the denial of recognition to chil- 
dren is a mark of necessary effect of the superior 
spirituality of Christianity. If it had been the pur- 
pose of Christ and the apostles to depart so conspic- 
uously from the Jewish practice, we should surely 
have had some clear intimation on the question. 
The absence of such intimation is a presumption on 
our side. These reasons justify the practice of In- 
fant Baptism, even if it were certain that the bap- 
tized households in Acts xvi. 15, 33, and 1 Corinthi- 
ans i. 16, included no children. In the days of Ter- 
tullian and Origen it was an old custom. Roman 
Catholics say that we receive Infant Baptism on the 
authority of the Church. In reply, we ask to be 
shown any decree or definition of the Church estab- 
lishing the practice. It was simply received and 
handed down from the beginning. It needed no for- 
mal enactment, and there is none to show. 

§ 292. Benefits. 
If we are asked, Of what moral good or evil are in- 
fants capable? we ask in reply, Are not all capacities 



THE CHUECH. 319 

of good and evil present in them? Do they not share 
in original sin and prevenient grace? Do they not 
need and receive the merit of Christ and the Holy 
Spirit's grace? If, then, they receive the grace, can 
we refuse them the seal of the grace? To do so is to 
concede to them the greater and refuse the less. We 
can understand the rejection of Infant Baptism by 
those who reject Original Sin and Prevenient Grace, 
but not otherwise. If infants need nothing from 
Christ and the Holy Spirit, if, dying, they are saved 
simply on the ground of natural goodness, then Bap- 
tism is a superfluity for them. But if they need 
much, the sign and seal of the grace they need and 
receive is due to them. And if this spiritual need 
does not begin with life, when does it begin? If it 
is said that, as the grace comes in any case, the sign 
is unnecessary, we can only refer to what has been 
said before. Such objections to positive laws would 
carry us much farther. 

£ 293. Mode of Baptism, 
Baptists hold that Immersion is the only legiti- 
mate mode, and thus hold implicitly that the form 
of a rite is of its essence. All other Churches hold 
that the mode — whether immersion, pouring, or 
sprinkling — is indifferent, though the last mode is 
more in consonance with Western customs. The 
argument in favor of immersion only appeals chiefly 
to the meaning of the word " baptize" and to the gen- 
eral Eastern custom. Both proofs are anything but 
conclusive. It is certain that "baptize" is often 
used in and out of Scripture in other senses than im- 
merse. In classical writers we read of a bladder 
floating on the sea being baptized, of the shore being 



320 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

baptized by the tide, of wine being baptized with 
water, where sprinkling or pouring is meant. The 
phrase is used in the Septuagint of Naaman's wash- 
ing in the Jordan, of Nebuchadnezzar's being wet 
with dew, Daniel iv. 33, ifid^yj. It is applied in 1 
Corinthians x. 2 to the Israelites passing through 
the Eed Sea. We read of baptisms of cups, pots, 
and brazen vessels, where dipping is not the only 
possible mode, Mark vii. 4. "They were all bap- 
tized in the Jordan" (Matt. iii. 6; Mark i, 5) would 
suit either immersion or pouring. Christ "was bap- 
tized by John into the Jordan" (Mark i. 9) seems to 
express immersion, but we do not deny that this is a 
possible mode. " Except they w ash themselves [bap- 
tize], they eat not," Mark vii. 4. Revised Version 
says, " Some ancient authorities read " pavricrwvTai 
( " sprinkle themselves ") instead o£ /SaTmowrai. 1 The 
phrase "in water" may express more than one mode, 
but "in the Spirit" (Matthew iii. 11) rather alludes 
to pouring or sprinkling, for the Spirit is said to fall 
or be poured on men, Acts ii. 17, 18. As to custom, 
immersion for obvious reasons is a very common 
form of ablution in the East, but pouring is almost 
equally common. 

But even if these arguments were as strong as 
they are supposed to be, we should still hold that 
the form or mode of a religious ceremony or rite 
might be varied according to national custom or lo- 
cal convenience without infringing its essence. We 
altogether doubt whether Christianity is so narrow 
and rigid, so bound to a point of form, as to be una- 

[ x For a fall discussion of this various reading, see The Meth- 
odist Review, Jan. 1897, pp. 439-442.— J. J. T.] 



THE CHURCH. 321 

ble to adapt itself to different outward customs. As 

matter of fact, all religious communities use such 
liberty. It is certain that the Baptists, like other 
Churches, do not observe the Lord's Supper in every 
detail in the form of its first institution. We can 
concede without danger that immersion was in early 
times a common mode of baptism. 1 

\ 294, The Lord's Supper. 

This phrase is found in 1 Corinthians xi. 20, and 
the "Lord's Table" in x. 21. "Altar" is never used 
in any passage treating of this subject. We have 
four separate accounts of the institution of the ordi- 
nance, substantially identical while differing in de- 
tail. Matthew xxvi. 27. 28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke 
xxii. 19. 20; 1 Corinthians xi. 23-26. The term "cov- 
enant" is used in all four accounts. "Shedding of 
blood" is referred to in all the three Gospels. "All 
drink." "blood of covenant." "for many.-" are pecul- 
iar to Matthew and Mark; "new" to Luke and Paul. 
\ 295. Passover and the Supper Both Commemorative. 

We see that Christ turns the Jewish Passover into 
the Christian Supper, and the analogy of the first or- 
dinance throws much light upon the second. There 
are indeed important additions, but the common ele- 
ment is large. Commemoration is a prominent fea- 
ture in both. Commemoration of what? Commem- 
oration of deliverance; perhaps we may say. deliver- 
ance by expiatory sacrifice in both. It is in the na- 
ture and range of the deliverance that the difference 

1 Paraleipomena fDiekinson\ chs. viii., ix.. and x., contains 
much good material on this subject. [See Dr. J. W. Dale's four 
volumes. Classic. Judaic, Johannic, and Christie and Patristic 
Baptism.— J, J. T.] 
21 



322 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

lies and the higher meaning of the Christian ordi- 
nance comes out. In one case it is mainly, if not 
entirely, temporal redemption; in the other, entirely 
spiritual. The Jewish ordinance no doubt took on 
a spiritual meaning, L c, the lower outward redemp- 
tion symbolized to the devout Jew the higher inward 
redemption which he needed and experienced, just 
as we do. Still this was not the original but an ac- 
quired meaning, as the account of the institution in 
Exodus xii. shows; whereas the Christian rite speaks 
of spiritual redemption only. Whether, indeed, the 
Passover belonged to the order of expiatory sacri- 
fices, cannot be said to be absolutely certain. 1 It 
was established before the Mosaic ritual and priest- 
hood. Supposing that probability is in favor of an 
expiatory meaning (John i. 29; 1 Corinthians v. 7), 
its presentation by the head of the household was a 
relic of the days when every father was a priest. In 
any case, however, the commemorative and eucharis- 
tie character was prominent. 2 As to the Lord's Sup- 

1 Smith's Bible Dictionary, ii. 724. Some Protestant writers 
have been afraid to admit the expiatory nature of the Passover, 
lest it should favor the Roman doctrine of the eucharistic sacri- 
fice. But the fear is groundless. The Passover, like every oth- 
er expiatory rite, could only be a type of the one great expia- 
tion, and ceased with it. According to Scripture, the imperfec- 
tion of the ancient sacrifices was shown in their need of repeti- 
tion. It is otherwise with the true expiation, Heb. ix. 25, 26, 
x. 1, 2. - "As the institution of the Passover preceded the gen- 
eral Mosaic legislation, its laws and arrangements lie without 
the circle of the ordinary ritual of sacrifices, and combine ideas 
which were otherwise kept distinct. The paschal supper re- 
sembles the peace offerings, the characteristic of which was the 
sacred feast that succeeded the presentation of the victim — an 
emblem of the fellowship between the accepted worshiper and 



THE CHURCH. 323 

per, there can be no doubt that it is the commemora- 
tion of redemption by sacrifice in the proper sense. 
Christ's death has been shown to be expiatory: ex- 
piation is its fundamental meaning and purpose; 
and the Supper is its commemoration. "This is my 
blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto 
remission of sins. This is my body which is given 
for you : this do in remembrance of me. This cup is 
the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out 
for you." Matt. xxvi. 28; Luke xxii. 19, 20. The per- 
petual obligation of the rite is especially seen in 1 
Cor. xi. 26 : "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink 
this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come." 

Out of Commemoration the Eucharistic idea 
springs directly, and this is prominent in both cases. 
The Christian thanksgiving is in proportion to the 
greatness of the blessing received. 

The idea of Communion or Fellowship is equally 
present. It is a common meal, partaken of in mem- 
ory of common blessings. In the Passover the idea 
of Sustenance also is not far off. 

I 298. Significance of the Lord's Supper. 

Every part of the Lord's Supper is significant in 

the highest degree. The broken bread represents 

the slain body, the wine the shed blood; the eating 

and drinking represent the living faith which unites 

his God. But the sin offering also is included, as a reference to 
the original institution of the Passover will at once show. The 
careful sprinkling of the blood upon the doorposts was intended 
to be more than a sign to the destroying angel whom to spare. 
The lamb was slain and the blood sprinkled, that atonement 
might be made for sin; when Israel is consecrated anew to 
God, the sin and the deserved punishment removed, the sacred 
feast is celebrated " ; SchafFs Popular Commentary on John i. 29. 



324: DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

the believer with his Lord. It is Christ dying as a 
sacrifice for sin that is specially set before us. 
While we cannot admit that John vi refers primari- 
ly to the Supper, inasmuch as it was not then insti- 
tuted, and the disciples could not have so under- 
stood Christ's teaching, we still think that the teach- 
ing finds its highest fulfillment and illustration in 
the Supper. "I am the bread of life. The bread 
that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the 
life of the world. Except ye eat the iiesh of the Son 
of man. and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 
My liesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink in- 
deed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh inv 
blood, dwelleth in me. and I in him. It is the spirit 
that quickeneth, the iiesh profiteth nothing" (John 
vi.). These words show, as the Supper does, that it 
is receiving Christ himself into us — receiving him 
spiritually, but really — that gives eternal life. We 
thus become spiritually one with him — "he dwell- 
eth in me. and I in him." Christ dying is the life of 
the soul. He is the soul's food : he gives life and sus- 
tains it. By eating and drinking him. and in no 
other way. do we obtain and support life. In the 
Supper the whole work of salvation is pictured as in 
a drama — Christ's part in dying and so atoning, our 
part in believing and so receiving Christ. 1 

? 297. Not a Necessary Channel of Grace, 
But does not partaking of the Supper necessarily 
convey these blessings? Not so. This would be to 
set aside all the other teaching of Scripture, which 

1 >ee a good exposition of the meaning of the Supper in Dr. 
Candlish's Handbook, The Sacrament?, p. 93. and Of Baptism, 
p. 54; H. Smith, two sermons on Lord's Supper, Works, i. 43. 



THE CHURCH. 325 

insists on the spiritual conditions of penitent seek- 
ing and trust. To such conditions God always gives 
the promised grace. And vet we may not say that 
the visible sign and seal is useless. What is true of 
the other sacrament in this respect holds good also 
here. In this life faith often leans on sense, and 
will do so until the time comes when we shall no 
longer "see through a glass darkly, but face to face/' 

\ 298. Renewal cf Christian Profession. 
On its human side the Lord's Supper is the re- 
newal of a Christian profession. We have no ordi- 
nance between Baptism and the Supper, and perhaps 
none is necessary. The life after Baptism should be 
a path leading to the Lord's Table. The first Com- 
munion should be suitably prepared for. Classes of 
the young to prepare for the Communion, and a spe- 
cial Communion Service, would be useful. Attend- 
ance on the Lord's Table is the universal badge of 
membership in the Church. Such a relation of 
course implies submission to test and discipline. 
•There can be no reasonable objection to additional 
tests of membership in particular branches of the 
Church. These, however, cannot supersede the gen- 
eral test. The Supper is also the badge and means 
of the Communion of Saints with each other, who 
thus show that, though many, they "are one body in 
Christ.'- The inner union of character and sympa- 
thy is thus made visible. 

B. — DOGMA OF THE SACRAMENTS. 

| 289. Three Types of Doctrine. 
There are three types of doctrine on this subject — 
the Roman, the Lutheran, and the Reformed. 



326 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

\ 300. The Roman Doctrine. 

According to Eonian doctrine, a sacrament pro- 
duces its effect ex opere operaio, necessarily, by the 

mere performance of the act. The grace is inherent 
in. a property of. the consecrated elements. It 
would not indeed be true to say that the action of 
the sacrament is unconditional. Intention in the 
priest and faith in the recipient are necessary; but 
the faith is reduced to a minimum. As stated be- 
fore under the head of Justification, the faith re- 
quired is general faith in Christianity as a whole, 
rather than specific faith in Christ. The necessity 
of intention on the part of the priest introduces un- 
certainty into ail the sacramental acts of the Eoman 
Church. 1 If it is essential that the priest shall al- 
ways intend to produce the effect of the sacrament 
he is administering, what certainty can we have that 
he does this? The condition required of the recip- 
ient is more negative than positive. He must sim- 
ply not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. On this 
condition the sacrament necessarily takes effect. "If 
anyone shall say that grace is not conferred by the 
sacraments of the new law ex opere operate, but that 
faith alone in the divine promise suffices to obtain 
grace, let him be anathema/' Cone. Trid. vii. sacr. 8. 2 
The Eoman Catechism thus defines a sacrament: "A 
thing under the cognizance of the senses, having the 

1 See this well argued in Jackson, Bk. xi. ch. xxxix. 2 "Si 
quis dixerit, per ipsa novae legis sacramenta ex opere operato 
non conferri gratiam, sed solam nclem divinae promissionis ad 
gratiam consequendam sumcere, anathema sit": Winer, p. 244. 



THE CHURCH. 327 

power by divine appointment both to. signify and to 
produce holiness and righteousness." 1 

§301. The Lutheran Doctrine, 

The Lutheran Church, while happily rejecting the 
ex opere operato, holds to the inherence of grace in 
the elements, but makes the experience of grace de- 
pendent on living earnest faith in the recipient. The 
grace is communicated to the elements, as in the 
Roman doctrine, by the consecrating words. It is 
the insistence on real faith that has saved Lutheran- 
ism from serious evil. "Through the Word and the 
Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Spirit 
is given, and he works faith, where and when God 
pleases, in those who hear the gospel." A. C. 2 
"They therefore condemn those who teach that the 
sacraments justify ex opere operato, and do not teach 
that faith, which believes sin to be forgiven, is nec- 
essary in using the sacraments. V3 Lutheranism 
puts the necessity of the sacraments high. 
\ 302. The Reformed Doctrine. 

The Reformed type of doctrine presents many 
shades and degrees, though substantially identical. 
The lowest point, where sacraments are merely 
badges of profession or commemorative, is only 

1 "TJt explicating quid sacramentuni sit declaretur, docendurn 
erit, rem esse sensibus subjecturn, quae ex dei institutione sane- 
titatis et justitise turn significandse turn efnciendse vim habet": 
Cat. Eom. ii. 1. 11 ; Winer, p. 234. 2 " Per verbum et sacramenta, 
tanquam per instrumenta, donatur Spiritus Sanctos, qui fidem 
efficit, ubi et quando visum est Deo, in iis qui audiunt evangel- 
ium": Ibid., p. 234. 8 "Damnant igitur illos, qui docent, quod 
sacramenta ex opere operate justificent, nee docent, fidem requiri 
in usu sacramentorum, quae credat remitti peccata" : Conf. Aug,, 
Winer, p. 246. 



328 DOCTBINES 0± REDEMPTION. 

reached in Socinianisin. Zwingli is sometimes said 
to have held the same view, but wrongly. The Re- 
formed confessions generally reject the inherence of 
grace in the elements, and put the efficacy in the co- 
operating Spirit. The definition given in the Re- 
monstrant Confession is very fine: '"By the sacra- 
ments we mean those outward ceremonies of the 
Church, or those sacred and solemn rites, by which. 
as by visible, federal signs and seals. God not only 
represents and adumbrates to us his gracious bene- 
fits, promised especially in the evangelical covenant, 
but also in a regular manner offers and seals them to 
us, and we in turn openly and publicly declare and 
testify that we embrace all the divine promises with 
a true, firm, and obedient faith, and desire ever to 
celebrate his benefits with constant and grateful 
memory." 1 Article xxv. of the English Church >r. 
Article xvi. of the Methodist Church] goes no far- 
ther: "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only 
badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, 
but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effec- 
tual signs of grace, and God's good will toward 
us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us. and 
doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and con- 
firm our faith in him." Westminster Confession: 

1 " Sacranienta cum dicmius, externa? ecclesiae eaerimonias sen 
ritos illos sacros ac solennes intelliginius, quibus veluti freder- 
alibus signis ac sigiliis visibilibus Deus gratiosa beneficia sua in 
.-re praesertini evangelico promissa non modo nobis reprae- 
semat et adumbrat. sea et eerto in quo exhibet atque obsignate 
nosque vicissirn palani publiceque deelaramus ac testamur, nos 
promissiones omnes divina vera, firina atque obsequiosa fide 
amplecti et beneficia ipsius jugi. et grata semper memoria cele- 
brare velle": Winer, p. 238. 



THE CHURCH. 329 

"Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the cove- 
nant of grace." Shorter Catechism: "An holy ordi- 
nance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible 
signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant 
are represented, sealed, and applied to believers." 
Wesleyan Catechism: "An outward and visible sign 
of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, or- 
dained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we 
receive the same, and a pledge to assure us there- 
of. They are signs and seals of the covenant of 
grace established in Christ; which is a covenant 
with promise on the part of God, and with condi- 
tions on the part of man." x 

I 303. Baptism: The Roman View. 
The Eoman doctrine is Baptismal Regeneration 
in its strictest form. Baptism entirely does away 
original sin, leaving only concupiscence, which is not 
sinful, though the cause or material of sin. Sin 
after baptism must be removed by the satisfaction 
of penance. Cone. Trid. xiv. poen. ii.: "We who pat 
on Christ by baptism are made quite a new creature 
in him, obtaining full and complete remission of all 
sins." Cat. Rom. ii. 2, 5: "Rightly and aptly de- 
fined, baptism is the sacrament of regeneration 
through water in the Word." 2 Baptism being the 

1 " Eoman Catholics may be said in substance to hold that the 
sacraments represent grace, because they apply it; Protestants, 
that they apply grace because they represent it " : Candlish, The 
Sacraments, p. 17; Blunt, Diet. Theol., art. " Sacraments," "Bap- 
tism," " Eucharist." 2 " Per Baptismum Christum mduentes nova 
prorsus in illo efheimur creatura, pienam et integram peccatorum 
omnium remissionem consequentes. . . Recte et apposite de- 
finitur, baptismum esse sacramentum regenerationis per aquam 
in verbo " : Winer, p. 253 ; Cramp, as before, pp. 109, 136, 213. 



330 DOCTEINES OF REDEMPTION. 

means of the reception of salvation, its necessity is 
placed at the highest point. Even unbaptized in- 
fants perish. On account of this stringent necessity 
the sacrament may, in certain circumstances, be ad- 
ministered by anyone. 

\ 304. The Lutheran View. 
The Lutheran Church teaches a general necessity, 
baptism being the ordinary means of regeneration. 
To save its doctrine of the necessity of faith, it holds 
that faith is present in some sense even in infants. 
Luther's Cat. Min. says: " Baptism works remission 
of sins, delivers from death and Satan, and bestows 
eternal blessedness on each and all who believe 
what the Word and the divine promises pledge." 
A. C. : "As to baptism, they teach that it is necessa- 
ry to salvation." 1 

I 305. The Reformed View. 
The Reformed doctrine has been indicated al- 
ready. The work of the Holy Spirit is put first. 
The Conf. Helv. ii., 2 after referring to the gifts of 
salvation, says: "By Baptism all these things are 
sealed; for inwardly we are regenerated, cleansed, 
and renewed by God through the Holy Spirit, while 
outwardly we receive the ratification of the greatest 

1 " Baptismus operatur remissionem peccatorum, liberat a 
inorte et a diabolo et donat seternum beatitudinem omnibus et 
singulis, qui credunt hoc quod verba et promissiones divinse pol- 
licentur. De baptismo docent, quod sit necessarius ad salutem." 
2 " Obsignantur hsec omnia baptismo ; nam intus regeneramur, 
purificamur et renovamur a Deo per Spiritual Sanctum, foris 
autem accipimus obsignationem maxim orum donorum in aqua, 
qua etiam maxima ilia beneficia reprsesentantur et veluti oculis 
nostris conspicienda proponuntur " : "Winer, pp. 254, 256. 



THE CHURCH. 331 

gifts in the water, by which also those great bene- 
fits are represented, and set forth, as it were, ob- 
jects of sight." Article xxvii. : "Baptism is not only 
a sign of profession, and mark of difference, where- 
by Christian men are discerned from others that be 
not christened; but it is also a sign of regeneration 
or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that 
receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; 
the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adop- 
tion to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are 
visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed and 
grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God." [Cf. 
Mr. Wesley's abridgment inArt.xvii.of the Methodist 
Church. — J. J.T.] All this is thoroughly in the spirit 
of Eeformed teaching. In the office of Baptism, how- 
ever, in the Prayer Book we have the Boman or Lu- 
theran type of doctrine: "Seeing that this child is by 
Baptism regenerate." "We yield thee thanks, that it 
hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy 
Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by 
adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy 
Church." [Xota bene: These words do not occur 
in the baptismal office of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. — J. J. T.] It is scarcely open to any- 
one, in the light of these words, to explain the regen- 
eration spoken of here as investment with outward 
privileges. West. Conf.: "Baptism is a sacrament of 
the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only 
for the solemn admission of the party baptized into 
the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and 
seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into 
Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of 
his growing up into God through Jesus Christ to 



332 DOCTEINES OF REDEMPTION. 

walk in newness of life."* Dr. Pope says: "The 
true doctrine makes baptism the initiatory sign of a 
covenant the blessings of which it most aptly sym- 
bolizes: the sprinkled blood and the Spirit poured 
out. It makes it also the seal of a covenant which 
pledges these blessings to all who believe and dedi- 
cate their children to Christ; a seal, therefore, of an 
impartation which is quite distinct from the seal, 
though it may accompany it, as it may have preced- 
ed it, and may also, as in part it must do to uncon- 
scious infancy, follow the seal": Comp. iii. 324. 

I 306. The Lord's Supper: The Roman Doctrine. 
The basis of the Eoman doctrine is the idea of 
Transubstantiation, the conversion of the substance 
of the bread and wine by the words of consecration 
into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. 
Cone. Trid. xiii. euch. 4: " Since our Kedeemer, 
Christ, affirmed that to be truly his body which he 
offered under the species of bread, it has always 
been so held in the Church of God, and this the holy 
Synod now at last declares, that by the consecration 
of the bread and wine a conversion takes place of the 
whole substance of the bread into the substance of 
Christ's body, and of the whole substance of the wine 
into the substance of his blood; which conversion is 
aptly and rightly called by the Holy Catholic Church 
transsubstantiatio/- "If anyone shall say that in the 
holy sacrament of the eucharist the substance of 
bread and wine remains, along with the body and 
blood of Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful 
and unique conversion of the whole substance of 
bread into the body and o" the whole substance of 
1 Winer, p. 254. 



THE CHURCH. 333 

wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine 
merely remaining, which conversion the Catholic 
Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him 
be anathema." 1 

\ 307. Substance and Accidents. 
Let it be noted that it is only the substance of the 
elements that is affected, the accidents u. e., proper- 
ties) remain, so that in this stupendous miracle the 
substance of bread and wine is absent, though the 
properties of bread and wine remain; and the sub- 
stance of body and blood is present, though the prop- 
erties of body and blood are absent. We must be- 
lieve that one substance is present, though not one 
of its qualities is present, and we must believe that 
another substance is absent, though all its qualities 
are present. This is faith, not merely without, but 
against the evidence of the senses. Faith and sense 
are in direct contradiction. It is useless to refer us 
to the Gospel miracles. There faith and sense were 
one. The ground of the faith that water was 

^■'Quoniam Christus Reclemtor noster corpus suum id, quod 
sub specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit, ideo persuasum sem- 
per in ecclesia Dei fait, idque nunc denuo Sancta ha?e Synodus 
declarat, per consecrationem panis et vini conversionem fieri 
totius substantive panis in substantiam corporis Christi, et totius 
substantias vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus: quae conversio 
convenienter et proprie a Sancta Catholica Ecclesia transsiibstan- 
tiatio est appellata. 

" Si quis dixerit, in sacrosancto eucharistias sacramento rema- 
nere substantiam panis et vini, una cum corpore et sanguine 
Jesu Christi, negaveritque mirabilem illam et singularem con- 
versionem totius substantias panis in corpus et totius substantias 
vini in sanguinem, manentibus duntasat speciebus panis et vini, 
quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime trans- 
substantiationem appellat, anathema sit " : Winer, p. 280. 



334 DOCTRINES OF BEDEMPTION. 

changed into wine was that the senses perceived the 
properties of wine to be present. The proof that 
the blind and deaf and sick were cured was the tes- 
timony of the senses. Christ did not require men to 
believe that a miraculous change had taken place, 
while their senses testified the contrary. In tran- 
substantiation it is not a miracle that we are asked 
to believe, but a contradiction. And if our senses 
play us false in one case, why not in others? If our 
senses deceive us, why may not our reason? We 
know of course that both sense and reason may be 
mistaken. But our whole system of thought and 
life rests on the assumption that after we have taken 
all possible care, and tested the information of the 
senses and the inferences of reason in every possible 
way, they are to be taken as true. If not, nothing 
can ever be known to be true; if not, universal skep- 
ticism is the only consistent course; and this is what 
the dogma leads to. The Trinity, the Incarnation, 
the Divine Attributes, present us with many myste- 
ries, mysteries which follow from the combination 
of the spiritual with the material, the infinite with 
the finite ; but they present no contradiction for our 
faith. Here is no question of the spiritual and in- 
finite, but simply a combination of material ele- 
ments. It is a combination of one substance with 
the properties of another substance, a substance 
without its properties and properties without their 
substance! The Roman Catechism avows the 
strange consequences which follow: "Since it has 
been proved that the body and blood of the Lord are 
truly in the sacrament, so that the substance of 
bread and wine no longer exists, and seeing that 



THE CHURCH. 335 

those accidents cannot inhere in Christ's body and 
blood, it follows that, beyond all order of nature 
(supra omneni naturse ordinem), they support them- 
selves with nothing else to rest on." 1 "Supra om- 
nem naturae ordinem" is a very mild statement of 
the position. A miracle is above the fixed order of 
nature. But this wonder contradicts every law of 
knowledge and faith which God has given us to 
guide our lives by. 2 

I 308, Sole Scriptural Authority Alleged. 

The sole scriptural authority for the dogma is the 
saying of Christ, "This is my body," Matthew xxvi. 
26. We respect the feeling which thinks itself 
bound to accept the literal words of Christ, what- 
ever consequences follow. But we venture to think 
that the consequences in this case are so tremendous 
that nothing but the most absolute necessity should 
lead us to acquiesce in the literal meaning. Is there 
any such necessity? Is no other sense possible? In 
what circumstances were the words spoken? Christ 
held the bread in his hand, and said of it, "This is my 
body." Putting ourselves in the position of the dis- 
ciples, is it conceivable that, with Christ's living 
body before our eyes, we could think that he held it 
in his hand, and gave it to us to eat? We think not. 
If the disciples had understood Christ as the Roman 
Church does, it is incomprehensible that the disci- 
ples expressed no surprise. Christ had often used 
figurative language about himself, speaking of him- 
self as Bread, a Vine, a Door, a Shepherd. They 
were accustomed to such modes of speech, and per- 

1 Winer, p, 381. 2 Cramp, Text-book of Popery, p. 249, 



336 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

feetly understood it. But now he makes a similar 
statement in a literal sense, and they say nothing! 
Besides, the meaning, "This signifies or represents 
toy body/' was quite in the order of Paschal speech. 
"Eat the passover," in this very chapter: "kill the 
passover' (Exodus xii. 21); "This cup is the new 
covenant in my blood" (Luke xxii. 20: 1 Corinthians 
xi. 25): "Drink the cup /V (1 Corinthians xi. 26). The 
Apostle Paul says, "As often as ye eat this bread; 
Whosoever shall eat the bread; So let him eat of the 
bread" (1 Corinthians xi. 26, etc.); so that the bread 
remains after the consecrating words are spoken. 
What the recipients eat is bread. How could Paul 
have said this, if he had held transubstantiation? 
Does he give any hint that only the accidents of 
bread remain, not the substance? Accidents with- 
out substance are not bread. We fear that St. Paul 
would come under the anathema of Trent just 
quoted. 

The dogma destroys all analogy with the other sac- 
rament. There is no such transformation of the 
water in baptism. It signifies certain spiritual 
things. On the Protestant view the bread and wine 
signify the body and blood of Christ, and the spirit- 
ual work accomplished by the death. But what do 
the body and blood themselves signify? Here we 
have not a sign, but the things signified. Eng. Arti- 
cle xxviii. [Methodist Art. xviii.] well says that the 
dogma "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament." 

$ 309. Growth, and Consequences of the Roman Dogma. 

No doubt, language tending in the direction of a 
literal presence of Christ's body and blood may be 



THE CHURCH. 337 

found in the Christian Fathers. 1 How much of this 
is to be understood literally, and how much is exag- 
gerated metaphor, it is not always easy to say. 
Probably, as on other subjects, language used at 
first metaphorically was afterwards taken literally. 
Active controversy began in the ninth century, Pas- # 
chasius Kadbertus advocating the dogma. Two 
centuries later, Ratramnus and Berengarius opposed 
it. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) adopted it. 

The next step was to withdraw the Cup from the 
laity. This was done at the Council of Constance, 
1115 A.D. Cone. Trid. xxi. euchar. 1: -The Holy 
Synod, taught by the Holy Spirit, and following the 
judgment and custom of the Church itself, declares 
and teaches that laymen and noncelebrant clerics 
are bound by no divine precept to receive the sacra- 
ment of the Eucharist under both species, and that 
it cannot be doubted, without detriment to faith, 
that communion in either species suffices for them 
to salvation." Cone. Trid. xiii. euchar. 3: "If any- 
one shall deny that in the venerable sacrament of 
the Eucharist the whole is contained under either 

1 " In a word, it appeareth not that of all the ancient Fathers 
of the Church any one did ever conceive or imagine other than 
only a mystical participation of Christ's both body and blood 
in the sacrament, neither are their speeches concerning the 
change of the elements themselves into the body and blood of 
Christ such that a man can thereby in conscience assure him- 
self it was their meaning to persuade the world either of a cor- 
poral consubstantiation of Christ with those sanctified and 
blessed elements before we receive them, or of the like tran- 
substantiation of them into the body and blood of Christ": 
Hooker, v. 67, 11. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles speaks 
copiously of Baptism and the Supper. It knows nothing of ex- 
tra scriptural additions: see chaps, vii., ix., x. 
22 



338 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

species and under the several parts of such species 
in case of separation, let him be anathema." 1 The 
statement of the reasons in the Roman Catechism 
for this course is so frank that it is worth quoting: 
"It is clear that the Church was led by many and 
grave reasons, not merely to approve, but also to 
confirm by authoritative decree, the excellent cus- 
tom of communicating under one species. For, first, 
the greatest care was necessary lest the blood of the 
Lord should be spilt on the ground, which could not 
easily be avoided, if it was necessary to administer 
it in a great throng of people. Moreover, when the 
holy Eucharist was to be given to the sick, it was 
greatly to be feared that, if the species of wine 
were kept long, it would turn foul. Again, there are 
very many who are quite unable to bear the taste or 
even the smell of wine. Wherefore, lest what is 
necessary for the soul's health should injure the 
body's health, the Church wisely decided that the 
faithful should only receive the species of bread. To 
these reasons must be added that in many districts 
there is great dearth of w T ine, nor can it be brought 
from elsewhere without great expense, and by long 
and difficult journeys. Again, what is most of all 

1 "Sancta Sy nodus, a Spiritu Sancto . . . edocta atque ipsi- 
us ecclesise judicium et eonsuetudinem secuta, declarat ac docet, 
nullo divino prsecepti laicos et clericos non confieientes obligari 
ad eucharistiee sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendnm, 
neque ullo pacto salva fide dubitari posse, quin illii alterius 
speciei communio ad salutem sufficiat. — Si quis negaverit, in 
venerabiii sacramento eucharistise sub unaquaque specie et sub 
singulis cujusque speciei partibus separatione facta totum Chris- 
tum contineri, anath. sit": Winer, p. 288; Cramp, as before, 
pp. 136, 213. 



THE CHURCH. 339 

important, it was necessary to root out the heresy of 
those who deny that the whole Christ is under either 
species, asserting that the body without blood is 
contained under the species of bread, and the blood 
under that of wine." 1 

Other consequences which follow from transub- 
stantiation are the Adoration of the Host, its res- 
ervation in the monstrance or sanctuary, elevation 
and carrying in procession for this purpose. The 
Roman Church also uses unleavened bread, and wine 
mixed with water. Cone. Trid. xiii. 6: "If anyone 
shall say that in the sacrament of the Eucharist 
Christ is not to be adored with the outward worship 
of latria, and so is not to be venerated with special 
festive honor, and carried about solemnly in proces- 
sions, or is not to be presented to the people to be 
worshiped, and that his worshipers are idolaters, let 
him be anathema." 2 

A still more distinctive and influential doctrine of 
the Roman Church is, that the body and blood of 
Christ veritably present in the Eucharist are a prop- 
er sacrifice for sin. "If anyone shall say that in 
the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered 
to God, or that 'to be offered' is nothing else than 
that Christ is given to us to be eaten, let him be 
anathema." "Since in this divine sacrifice, which is 
performed in the Mass, the same Christ is contained 
and slain without blood, who once offered himself 
with blood on the altar of the cross, the Synod 
teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and 
through it it comes to pass that, if with true heart 
and right faith we come contritely and penitently to 

1 Winer, p. 288. 2 lbid., p. 285. 



340 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

God, with fear and reverence, we shall obtain mer- 
cy/' etc. 1 "If anyone shall say that the sacrifice of 
the Mass is merely one of giving of thanks and praise, 
or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on 
the cross, but not propitiatory, or that it benefits 
only the recipient, and ought not to be offered for 
the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satis- 
factions, and other afflictions, let him be," etc. 2 
Thus, according to Roman doctrine, the Eucharist is 
two things at once — a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. 
A Sacrament is primarily something given by God 
to men as a sign and seal, a Sacrifice something 
given by or for man to God. Considered in the lat- 
ter aspect, the Eucharist -differs in some respects 
from the sacrifice of the cross. It is through it that 
the sacrifice of the cross is applied to men. As it is 
constantly repeated, its value is only finite. Ac- 
cording to Bellarmin, who is always ready with sug- 
gestions, it is only meritorious and propitiatory in 
the second degree, deriving its virtue from the orig- 
inal sacrifice, which was "meritorious, satisfactory, 

1 " Si quis dixerit, in missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium 
sacrificium, aut quod offerri non sit aliud, quam nobis Christum 
ad manducandum dari, an. sit. — Quoniam in divine hoc sacrifi- 
cio, quod in missa peragitur, idem ille Christus continetur et in- 
cruente immolatur, qui in ara crucis semel se ipsum cruente ob- 
tulit, docet synodus, sacrificium istud vere propitiatorium esse 
per ipsumque fieri, ut, si cum vero corde et recta fide, cum metu 
et reverentia, contriti ac pcenitentes ad deum accedamus, miseri- 
cordiam, etc." : Winer, p. 293. 2 " Si quis dixerit, missse sacrifi- 
cium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum actionis, aut nudam com- 
memorationem sacrificii in cruce peracti, non autem propitiato- 
rium, vel soli prodesse sumenti, neque pro vivis et defunctis, 
pro peccatis pcenis satisfactionibus, et aliis necessitatibus offerri 
debere, an. sit " : Ibid., p. 294. 



THE CHUECH. 341 

and impetratory, truly and properly." This sacri- 
fice of the Mass is only inipetratory, i. e., it suppli- 
cates blessing. "When it is called propitiatory or 
satisfactory, this is to be understood in reference to 
the thing supplicated. For it is called propitiatory 
because it supplicates remission of guilt; satisfacto- 
ry, because it supplicates remission of penalty; mer- 
itorious, because it supplicates grace to do good and 
acquire merit." 1 

No part of Eoman doctrine aroused greater or 
juster hostility at the Reformation, as infringing, 
however it may be disclaimed, on the sufficiency of 
the Sacrifice of the Cross, than this. The Protestant 
confessions are filled with condemnations of the doc- 
trine. Private masses and masses for the dead fol- 
low by direct consequence. If Christ's sacrifice 
needs to be continued and repeated, we have Jew- 
ish incompleteness back again. "Nor yet that he 
should offer himself often, as the high priest entered 
into the holy place every year with blood of others," 
Hebrews ix. 25, 26, x. 11-14. If it was God's purpose 
that the sacrifice of the cross should be carried into 
effect in this way, it is inexplicable that there is no 
hint of the kind in Scripture. 

This doctrine is the complement of the Roman 
theory of the Priesthood. The priest offers the sac- 
rifice of the Mass for the living and the dead, or 
Christ offers himself through the priest. In early 
days the term sacrifice was applied to the Eucharist, 
obviously in a spiritual sense; but this gave w T ay to 
the literal sense, as the sacerdotal view of the minis- 
try developed (p. 299). Each dogma helped the other. 

1 Winer,p.294. 



342 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

I 310. The Lutheran Doctrine. 

The Lutheran Church, while strenuously condemn- 
ing the other distinctively Eoman doctrines of the 
Eucharist, retains the corporeal presence of Christ 
on the same grounds as the Eoman Church. Conf. 
Aug.: " Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach 
that Christ's body and blood are truly present, and 
are distributed to those partaking, and reject those 
teaching otherwise." "We confess that we think 
that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of 
Christ are truly and substantially present, and are 
truly offered, with those things which are seen, the 
bread and wine, to those who receive the sacra- 
ment." 1 At the same time, Lutheranism rejects 
transubstantiation, the sacrificial idea, and the 
fleshly eating. "We utterly reject and condemn the 
Capernaite eating of Christ's body." Lutheranism 
thinks itself bound by the literal meaning of Christ's 
words, and yet cannot receive transubstantiation, 
because of the difficulties it involves. The body and 
blood are present, and the bread and wine are pres- 
ent. How are these propositions to be combined? 
It is said that the body and blood are present in, 
with, or under the bread and wine. The union be- 
tween the body and the bread and between the blood 
and the wine is a sacramental one. The union is 
also not permanent, only in usu. Thus adoration 

8 "De coena Domini docent, quid corpus et sanguis Christi 
vere adsint et distribuantur vescentibus in coena Domini, et im- 
probant secus docentes. — Confitemur nos sentire, quod in ccen& 
Domini vere et substantialiter adsint corpus et sanguis Christi 
et vere exhibeantur cum illis rebus, quse videntur, pane et vino, 
his qui sacramentum accipiunt " : Winer, p. 283. 



THE CHURCH. 343 

and reservation are cut off. The peculiar Lutheran 
doctrine of the Incarnation, the comrnunicailo idio- 
matum, is here practically applied to explain the 
Ubiquity of Christ's body. It was on the present 
subject that Luther showed himself so obstinate in 
controversy with the Swiss Reformers, and his views 
were adopted by the Lutheran Church. Consub- 
stantiation is the name given to the doctrine. It is 
a compromise, which separates Lutheranism both 
from Eome and from the rest of the Reformation. 
According to it, two substances are present with 
their properties, and are equally received. Real 
body and blood are eaten and drunk, but in a spirit- 
ual or sacramental way! 1 

l 311. The Reformed Doctrine. 

The Reformed doctrine, while unanimously reject- 
ing the special Roman and Lutheran tenets, pre- 
sents some shades of difference in itself, as in the 
case of the other sacrament. Zwingii is generally 
thought to have held the bare commemorative sense. 
But Dr. Pope says that, while tending toward that 
view, "his doctrine went beyond it: Christ to the 
contemplation of faith is not only subjectively but 
objectively present; and that spiritual eating of his 
heavenly body, which is the appropriation of his 
atoning grace, is a sacramental eating or receiving 
of the signs and seals of a present Saviour." 2 He 
preferred the phrase "cum pane et vino" to "in pane 
et vino." The quotations given by Winer (p. 269) 
scarcely go beyond the idea of commemoration and 

1 On the Lutheran doctrine, see Jackson, Works, Bk. xi. ch, 
iii. 2 Comp. of Theol. iii. 332. 



344 DOCTEINES OF REDEMPTION. 

pictorial teaching. Thus: "When the bread and 
wine, consecrated by the words of the Lord, are dis- 
tributed to the brethren, is not the whole Christ, as 
it were sensibly (to say more, if words are necessary, 
than is common), presented to the senses ? But how ? 
Is the natural body itself to be handled and tasted? 
By no means; it is offered to mental contemplation, 
while the sensible sacrament of it is offered to sense. 
. . . We never denied that Christ's body is sac- 
ramentally and mysteriously present in the Supper, 
both because of the contemplation of faith and be- 
cause of the entire action of the symbol.'' 

Calvin holds a real, though spiritual, feeding on 
the body and blood of Christ. "The communicant is 
lifted up by faith to heaven, and his soul is as surely 
invigorated by the spiritual body of Christ as his 
body by the emblems" (Pope). Calvin says: "The 
chief point is that our souls are nourished by the 
flesh and blood of Christ, just as bread and wine pre- 
serve and support bodily life. For the analogy of 
the sign would not hold good, unless our souls found 
their food in Christ, which cannot be, unless Christ 
really unite with us and refresh us by the eating of 
his flesh and the drinking of his blood. And al- 
though it seems impossible, considering the distance 
of space, for the flesh of Christ to reach to us, so as 
to be our food, let us remember how far above all our 
senses the secret power of the Holy Spirit shines, 
and how foolish it is to measure his vastness by our 
limits. What, then, our mind comprehends not, let 
faith conceive, that the Spirit really unites things 
disjoined in space." 1 "If with our eyes and minds 

1 Winer, p. 270. Dean Jackson says: "This present efficacy 



THE CHURCH. 345 

we are carried up to heaven to seek Christ there in 
the glory of his kingdom, even as the symbols invite 
us to him in his integrity, so let us under the symbol 
of bread feed on his body, and under the symbol of 
wine drink separately of his blood, that at length we 
may enjoy him perfectly." Calvin objects to the 
corporeal presence, because it binds the divine to 
earthly and corruptible elements, and infringes on 

of Christ's body and blood upon our souls, or real communica- 
tion of both, I find as a truth unquestionable amongst the an- 
cient Fathers and as a Catholic confession. The modern Lu- 
theran and the modern Romanist have fallen into their several 
errors concerning Christ's presence in the Sacrament from a 
common ignorance; neither of them conceive, nor are they 
willing to conceive, how Christ's body and blood should have 
any real operation upon our souls, unless they were so locally 
present as they might ag ere per contactum, as physical medicines 
do our bodies (which is the pretended use of transubstantiation), 
or so quicken our souls, as sweet odors do the animal spirits, 
which were the most probable use of the Lutheran consubstan- 
tiation. Both the Lutherans and Papists avouch the authority 
of the ancient Church for their opinions, but most injuriously. 
For more than we have said, or more than Calvin doth stiffly 
maintain against Zwinglius and other Sacramentaries, cannot 
be inferred from any speeches of the truly orthodox or ancient 
Fathers ; they all agree that we are immediately cleansed and 
purified from our sins by the blood of Christ, that his human 
nature, by the inhabitation of the Deity, is made to us the in- 
exhaustible fountain of life. But about the particular manner 
how life is derived to us from his human nature, or whether it 
sends its sweet influence upon our souls only from the heavenly 
sanctuary, wherein it dwells as in its sphere; or whether his 
blood which was shed for us may have more immediate local 
presence with us, they no way disagree, because they in this 
kind abhorred curiosity of dispute. As for ubiquity and tran- 
substantiation, they are the two monsters of modern times, 
brought forth by ignorance and maintained only by faction": 
Bk. x. ch. lv. 12; Hooker, Bk. v. 55. 67. 8-11. 



346 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

the integrity of Christ's human nature. The Remon- 
strant Confession is again worth quoting: "The holy 
Supper is the second sacred rite of the New Testa- 
ment, instituted by Jesus Christ on the night in 
which he was betrayed, to celebrate the eucharistic 
and solemn commemoration of his death, in which 
the faithful, after duly examining and testing them- 
selves as to their true faith, eat the sacred bread pub- 
licly broken, and also drink the wine publicly poured 
out; and this to declare with solemn thanksgiving 
the bloody death of the Lord undergone for us (by 
which, as our bodies are sustained by food and drink, 
or by bread and wine, so our hearts are fed and nour- 
ished to the hope of eternal life), and in turn to testi- 
fy publicly before God and the Church their vivify- 
ing and spiritual fellowship with Christ's crucified 
body and shed blood (or with Jesus Christ himself 
crucified and dead for us), and so with all the bene- 
fits obtained and acquired by the death of Jesus 
Christ, and at the same time their mutual charity 
among themselves." 1 The Helv.Conf.ii. distinguish- 
es two kinds of eating, the mandncatio corporalis and 
manducatio spirUualls. Of the former it says: "By 
this kind of eating the Capernaites once understood 
that the flesh of the Lord was to be be given to them 
to eat, but they are refuted by John vi." Eng. Art. 
xxviii. [Methodist Art. xviii.] : "The body of Christ 
is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a 
heavenly and spiritual manner; and the mean where- 
by the body of Christ is received and eaten in the 
Supper is faith." 

§ 312. The Five Additional Roman Sacraments. 
The five additional sacraments of the Roman 

1 Winer, p. 265. 



THE CHURCH. 347 

Church are Confirmation, Orders, Penance, Matri- 
mony, and Extreme Unction, the administration of 
the first two being reserved to the bishop. The al- 
leged scriptural authority for them is very shadowy. 
The best ground on which to place them is the 
Church's authority in the Roman sense. Penance is 
the means by which post-baptismal sin is to be re- 
moved. On the penitent's contrition, confession, 
and satisfaction, the priest pronounces absolution. 
The satisfaction consists of temporal penalties im- 
posed by the priest, which again may be commuted 
for fasting, prayer, and alms. The doctrine of in- 
dulgences is a means of relieving these penalties. 
While on the one hand the Roman Church raises 
matrimony into a sacrament, on the other it makes 
celibacy a condition of the highest perfection. 
These sacraments are comparatively recent inno- 
vations. 1 

§ 313. Literature. 

Halley, The Sacraments, 2 vols. ; S. C. Malan, The 
Two Holy Sacraments; Candlish, The Sacraments; 
S. P. Harvard, Christian Baptism; Gregory, Hand- 
book of Scriptural Church Principles, Part i. pp. 32- 
78; Dale, Manual of Congregational Principles, pp. 
121-164. [For a thoroughgoing discussion of the 
points at issue between Romanism and Protestant- 
ism on the sacraments, see Summers's Systematic 
Theology, ii. 213-494.— J. J. T.] 

iPope, Comp. iii. 307; Luthardt, Comp. p. 332; H. B. Swete, 
England v. Eome. 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE LAST THINGS. 

$3U. Sheol and Hades— §315. Old Testament Doctrine— §316. Incom- 
pleteness of Hades — §317. Purgatory — §31$. Scripture Teach- 
ing— §319. Preceding Events — §320. Apostolic Expectation— 
§321. Premillenarianisai — §322. The Theory Materialistic — 
§323. Historical— §321. Eefutation— §325. The Church and Bible 
Doctrine— §326. Xature of the Resurrection Body— §327. Lu- 
theran EiiPHASis— §328. The Xe¥ Testament Doctrine — §329. 
Blessedness of the Eighteous— §330. Eternal Punishment— §331. 
Matthew y,. xviii., and Mark ix.— §332. Hades in Luke xvi.— §333. 
Other Sayings of Christ— §331. Tenor of Christ's Teaching. — 
§335. Tenor of Scripture— §336. Death and Destruction— §337. 
Figure and Metaphor— §338. A Few More Examples— §339. Fate 
of the Heathen— §310. Difficulties and Mysteries— §311. Con- 
clusion— §312. Other Theories: Probation After Death— §313. 
Uniyersalism— §311. Annihilation or Conditional Immortality 
—§315. Note on Significance of Eternal— §316. Literature. 

I. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 
\ 314. Sheol and Hades. 

The Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades (the invis- 
ible, the world of spirits) represent the same idea. 
It is only in accordance with the law of develop- 
ment running through revelation that the doctrine 
of a future state should be taught less distinctly in 
the earlier than in the later Scriptures. Accord- 
ingly we find that Sheol is. so to speak, undifferen- 
tiated. It is spoken of as the common home of the 
righteous and the wicked: whereas in the Xew Tes- 
tament Hades divides into Paradise and Gehenna. 1 

1 Hades occurs twelve times in the Xew Testament (Matt. xi. 
23, xvi. IS; Luke x. 15, xvi. 23: Acts ii. 27, 31; 1 Cor. xv. bo; 
Eev. i. IS, iii. 7, vi. S, xx. 13, 14); so Gehenna (Matt. v. 22. 29, 
30, x. 28, xviii. 9. xxiii. 13, 15; Mark ix. 43, 45, 47; Luke xii. 5; 
James iii. 6). Other phrases also are used for Gehenna. 
(348) 



THE LAST THINGS 349 

"Paradise" occurs in Luke xxiii. 43; 2 Corinthians 
xii. 4; Revelation ii. 7 (Abraham's bosom, Luke 
xyi. 22). Hades, then, sometimes means the un- 
seen state generally, sometimes one of its two di- 
visions, Luke xvi. 23; Acts ii. 31. Though the two 
divisions are not mentioned in the Old Testament, 
they are implied there in the differing character and 
destiny of the righteous and the wicked. 

$315. Old Testament Doctrine, 

Of the many paradoxes advanced respecting the 
future state, the most extraordinary is the one that 
can see no doctrine of a future state in the Old Tes- 
tament. The argument is the usual one from si- 
lence; we should prefer to say comparative silence. 
And the present case is a good illustration of the 
weakness of the argument. The doctrine of im- 
mortality, like that of God, is one of the postulates 
of religion. There is no religion without it. If it 
is absent from the system of the Old Testament, 
that system is not a religion at all. The Old Testa- 
ment never categorically asserts the existence of 
God, but assumes it. In the same way, it assumes 
the present existence of a soul in man. The same 
argument would prove that the Old Testament rec- 
ognizes no soul in man at present. The great under- 
lying truths of religion seldom come to the surface 
in direct speech, but reveal their presence incident- 
ally. The phrase, " gathered to his fathers" or 
" people," used of Abraham, Moses, Aaron, David, 
is such an intimation, Genesis xxv. 8 ; Deuteronomy 
xxxii. 50; Numbers xx, 24; 1 Kings ii. 10. The 
phrase for burial is quite distinct, Genesis xxxv. 29. 



350 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

The celebrated passage in Job (xix. 26), whatever its 
relation to the question of a resurrection, expresses 
a confident expectation of a future vision of God. 
The translations of Enoch and Elijah could not but 
deepen the general belief. Raisings of the dead, 
like those in 1 Kings xvii. 21 and 2 Kings iv. 34, did 
the same. Ecclesiastes xii. 7 draws a clear distinc- 
tion between the fate of the spirit and that of the 
body. Samuel's appearance at Endor (1 Samuel 
xxviii. 19), whatever questions may be raised as to 
its mode, is evidently regarded as real, and is an- 
other testimony to the belief in another world. Our 
Lord's argument in Matthew xxii. 32 (Exodus iii. 6) 
is only a strong statement in words of what every 
Jew thought. Otherwise it would have had no 
force for the hearers. Above all, who can read the 
glowing language of the Psalms, in which future re- 
ward and retribution play so large a part, and think 
that the writers believed and knew nothing of a fu- 
ture state? Besides, it is certain that the doctrine 
of immortality formed part of the religion of an- 
cient Egypt, where the Israelites dwelt for several 
centuries. 

| 316. Incompleteness of Hades. 

Undoubtedly, Hades is regarded as an incomplete 
state, which comes to an end at the Eesurrection 
and the Judgment. Excluding the ideas of future 
probation and purgatory, we can only think of the 
righteous and the wicked as becoming more and 
more fixed in character. The spirit is without its 
companion, the body. The final, complete state 
first begins at Judgment. 



THE LAST THINGS. b51 

§317. Purgatory. 

The Roman Church adds a third division to Hades. 
According to it, the good, with rare exceptions, be- 
fore entering Paradise, must be perfected by the suf- 
fering of Purgatory. This state is only for the good, 
i. e., those who die in a state of salvation. There is 
no evidence in Scripture for the idea, but much 
against it. The fire of 1 Corinthians iii. 12-15 is dif- 
ferent in nature and purpose. It is not for all 
Christians, but for Christian builders, to test and 
judge the quality of their work; it is the fire of the 
Judgment, while purgatory precedes Judgment; in 
short, it is evidently a figure of speech for the final 
Judgment. 1 Scripture speaks of the immediate hap- 
piness of the dead in Christ, Luke xvi. 22, xxiii. 
43; 2 Corinthians v. 6, 8. Surely ordinary Chris- 
tians, after a long life of growth in grace, are as fit 
for heaven as the penitent thief, or as Lazarus in the 
parable. Besides, unlimited efficacy is ascribed in 
Scripture to the blood of Christ, Ephesians i. 7; He- 
brews x. 14; 1 John i. 7. If, indeed, the existence of 
such a middle state were taught in Scripture, we 
might say that its cleansing power is derived from 
the atonement, as we say of the means used in the 
present state; but when no such doctrine is taught, 
we can only regard the state as a work of superero- 
gation. It undertakes to do what there is already 
ample provision for. 

A passage in the Apocrypha (2 Maccabees xii. 42- 
45) intimates a belief of the Jews in forgiveness 
after death. Dr. Swete says: "This proves, indeed, 

1 H, B. Swete, England v. Rome, p. 80 (Kivingtons), 



352 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

that the Jews of the Maccabean period believed in 
remission of sins after death, but not that their tra- 
dition was a true one." This is one of a multitude 
of Jewish notions which the Xew Testament entire- 
ly ignores. Clement of Alexandria speaks of a spir- 
itual fire in the present life. Origen transferred it 
to the next life; but he uses the idea to support, not 
a Eoman purgatory, but universalism. Augustine 
is indefinite on the subject. Gregory the Great, in 
the sixth century, was the first to teach purgatory in 
the full sense. And from his day the doctrine 
grew in definiteness and influence. In the Middle 
Ages no doctrine exerted greater power over Chris- 
tian thought and life. The frightful abuses of In- 
dulgences grew up in connection with it. Other 
means of alleviating and shortening the cleansing 
process are charity, prayer, and especially Masses 
for the dead. The fire is generally regarded as cor- 
poreal, as well as penal and purifying. From the 
nature of the doctrine, it must assume a chief place 
wherever it is received. It was adopted first at the 
Council of Florence, at which both the Greek and 
Latin Churches were represented, in 1443, and final- 
ly at Trent. To-day. however, the Greek Church re- 
jects the doctrine, while retaining the practice of 
prayers for the dead. Some Lutheran divines adopt 
the notion of a semi-purgatory, extending it even to 
a probation for the wicked (Martensen, Kahnis, 

Dorner). 1 

II. CHRIST'S SECOND COMING. 

\ 318. Scripture Teaching". 
The Second Coming is mentioned in the three 
1 Blunt, Diet. Theol., art. "Purgatory." 



THE LAST THINGS. 606 

creeds. It is often referred to in Scripture, and 
clearly formed, as preliminary to the Judgment, a 
more frequent subject of apostolic than it does of 
modern preaching. It is described as the Trapovo-ia, 
€7u<£cWa (2 Thessalonians ii. 8), airoKoXv^ (2 Thessa- 
lonians i. 7; 1 Corinthians i. 7). The time is, "that 
day" (Matthew vii. 22), "the great day" (Jude 6), 
"last day" (John vi. 39), "day of the Lord" (1 Corin- 
thians i. 8, v. 5), recalling an Old Testament phrase. 
See also Acts i. 11, iii. 20, 21; Kevelation i. 7. The 
time is secret (Acts i. 7; Mark xiii. 32); the manner 
sudden (Matthew xxiv. 27, 39, 11). The destruction 
of Jerusalem is treated as a preliminary coming 
(xxiv. 31, 35). 

I 319. Preceding Events. 

There are several events, spoken of as preceding 
the Second Advent, which it is not easy to adjust to- 
gether. St. Paul seems to foretell a general conver- 
sion of the Jews, leading to a general conversion of 
the Gentiles (Komans xi. 15, 25). And Scripture in 
many places seems to justify the Christian presenti- 
ment which anticipates the conversion of mankind. 
Yet the same apostle foretells a great apostasy as 
coming before the Advent, 2 Thessalonians i. 8, ii. 3, 
4. His Man of Sin and Lawless One is evidently St. 
John's Antichrist (1 John ii. 18, 22, iv. 3). Here we 
have a critical example of the difficulty of expound- 
ing prophecy before the time of fulfillment. 

I 320. Apostolic Expectation. 

Some have thought that the apostles expected the 
Second Advent to take place soon, using the sup- 
posed mistake as an argument against the doctrine 
23 



35dL DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

of inspiration, Even some orthodox writers think 
the evidence too strong to be gainsaid. The evi- 
dence is really far from strong. The language of 
passages like Philippians iv. 5; 1 Peter iv. 7: 1 John 
ii. IS, might be used at any time. 2 Thessalonians il. 
2 expressly warns against the notion "that the day 
of Christ is at hand." This passage shows that the 
notion existed among the Thessalonians, as is evi- 
dent also from 1 Thessalonians iv. 15-17. But the 
apostle, so far from sharing, disclaims the view. In 
the phrase, "we which are alive." the apostle, in his 
usual vivid style, identities himself with those who 
shall be found alive at the Second Coming, and 
speaks in their name. 

I 321. Premillenarianism 

Millenarianism or Chiliasm is a certain scheme of 
the Second Advent. At Christ's coming the just 
only are raised from the dead; they reign with Christ 
on earth a thousand years (the binding of Satan); 
then the wicked are raised. Satan is unloosed, and 
the Last Judgment takes place. The chief points 
are the two resurrections and the thousand years' 
visible reign on earth. The whole theory is taken 
from Revelation xx. 1-10. and is established if that 
passage is meant to be taken literally. But is it? 
All probability is against the notion. The account 
is part of a description which overflows with highly- 
wrought symbol and imagery. No one dreams of 
taking the rest of the description literally; and yet it 
would be as reasonable to do so as to take this liter- 
ally. An even stronger objection is. that it is im- 
possible to fit the two chief points of the theory — 



THE LAST THINGS. 355 

the interval between the two resurrections and the 
visible earthly reign — into the other descriptions of 
the same events, descriptions which are free from 
figure and symbol. The references to the subject 
elsewhere are frequent and full — John v. 28, 29, vi. 
10; Matthew xxv.; 1 Corinthians xv.; 2 Corinthians 
v. 9-11; Acts xvii. 31; Romans ii. 16; 2 Peter iii. 8-13; 
1 Thessalonians iv. 13-18 — yet they give no sugges- 
tion or hint of these important features. St. Paul, 
indeed, says, "The dead in Christ shall rise first" (1 
Thessalonians iv. 16), but the meaning of the "first" 
is, before the living are changed. 

£322. The Theory Materialistic. 
The theory is of a material cast, and is indeed a re- 
currence to the temporal views of the Jews and the 
first disciples. It supposes that spiritual means 
have failed or only partially succeeded; Christ has 
at last to rely on an overwhelming manifestation of 
power, and to overcome all opposition by sheer force. 
We may well ask, "Having begun in the Spirit, are 
ye now made perfect in the flesh?" If such means 
are to be used at all, why not at first? Why allow 
the long triumph of evil, if it is to be put down at 
last by sheer power? If the theory has not its root 
in despair at the slow progress of truth and the 
slow success of spiritual means, it finds its chief sup- 
port in such a feeling. 

§323. Historical. 
Indeed, historically, it is not improbable that the 
theory had a Jewish origin. Among its first teach- 
ers are writers like Hernias, Barnabas, Papias. who 
betray such strong Jewish leanings. It is found 



356 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

also in Justin, Irenaeus, Methodius, Lactantius. It 
disappeared when Christianity finally triumphed 
over heathenism. Generally speaking, it flourishes 
most in days of religious conflict and depression. 
There was very little of it during the Middle Ages. 
It revived at the Eeformation in Anabaptism, and 
the Fifth-Monarchy men. Since then, Millenarian- 
ism has been advocated in a purer form and on more 
intelligent grounds by very good men. It character- 
izes the Evangelical School of the Anglican Church. 
Bengel, Irving, and many other German and English 
divines have held or favored it. 1 

§324. Befutation. 

Some good remarks on the subject will be found in 
a special note by Dr. Milligan in SchafPs Popular 
Commentary, p. 488. 2 The points he puts are as fol- 
lows: "If we interpret the thousand years literally, 
it will be a solitary example of a literal use of num- 
bers in the Apocalypse, and this objection alone is 
fatal." How also will the glorified body of believ- 
ers fit in with a non-glorified earth? "The great dif- 
ficulty, however, presented by this view of the mil- 
lennium, arises from the teaching of Scripture else- 
where upon the points involved in it. We are not 
entitled to separate between believers and unbeliev- 
ers, for it cannot be denied that the New Testament 
always brings the Parousia and the general judg- 
ment into the closest possible connection. When 

1 Christ's Second Coming: will it be Premillennial? Dr. D. 
Brown (Clark); Blunt, Diet. TheoL, arts. " Millennium," "Sec- 
ond Advent " 2 See also his Baird Lecture, The Eevelation of 
St. John (Macmillan). 



THE LAST THINGS. 357 

Christ conies again, it is to perfect the happiness of 
all his saints, and to make all his enemies his foot- 
stool. The idea of masses of the nations continuing 
to be Christ's enemies for years or ages after he has 
come is not only entirely novel, but is at variance 
with everything we are taught by the other sacred 
writers upon the point." The " first resurrection" 
of Revelation xx. is a state, not an act. The word 
"this" (verse 5) refers to the whole of the previous 
description. "The writer is not thinking of any first 
act of rising in contrast with a second act of the 
same kind. He is describing the condition of cer- 
tain persons in comparison with others, after an act 
of rising, predicable of them both, has taken place." 
"The thousand years are not a period of time at all. 
They represent that victory of the Lord over Satan 
which is shared by his people in him, and they com- 
plete the picture of that glorious condition in which 
believers have all along really been, but which only 
now reaches its highest point, and is revealed as 
well as possessed. The saints 'died' when they be- 
lieved, and entered into a divine life, but are 'hid 
with Christ in God.' At the manifestation of Christ 
at his Second Coming, they also are manifested with 
him in glory." 

III. THE GEKEEAL EESUREECTION. 

§ 325. The Church and Bible Doctrine. 

The doctrine is contained in the Apostles' and M- 
cene Creeds. There seem to be intimations of it in 
the Old Testament, Isaiah xxvi. 19; Daniel xii. 2; 
Job xix. 25, doubtful. It is frequently and emphat- 
ically taught by Christ and the Apostles, Luke xx. 



358 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

35-37; John v. 28, 29, vi, 39, xi.; Romans viiL 11; 1 
Corinthians vi. 14, xv. The doctrine is peculiar to 

Christianity, Acts xvii. 18. It distinctly recognizes 
the body as an integral, permanent part of man's na- 
ture. As the instrument of moral good and evil, the 
body is to share in the final awards. This is only in 
keeping with the general teaching of Christianity, 
which gives high honor to the body, Eomans yi. 19, 
xii. 1; 1 Corinthians yi. 15, 19, 20, ix. 27. The Incar- 
nation itself is the highest example of this spirit. 
The resurrection of "the body' 1 or "the flesh" (as the 
earliest forms of the Apostles' Creed have the 
phrase) is not a Scripture expression. Scripture 
speaks only of the resurrection of the dead; but 
many passages show that a bodily resurrection is 
meant, 

§ 326. Nature of the Resurrection Body. 
There have always been two schools of thought in 

the Church as to the nature of the resurrection body 
and its relation to the earthly body, one making the 
identity closer than the other. Origen, an Alexan- 
drian, held a more spiritual view. The Latin Fa- 
thers generally made the identity stricter (Jerome, 
Augustine, Tertullian, Lactantius). Scripture, while 
teaching the identity, plainly indicates that the 
change will be considerable, passing our comprehen- 
sion. All the statements and hints in 1 Corinthians 
xv. point in this direction. The comparison of the 
seed and grain, the reference to the different kinds 
of body, the contrast between weakness and power, 
corruption and incorruption, dishonor and glory, be- 
tween the natural and spiritual (psychical and pneu- 
matical), the earthly and heavenly, all forbid us to 



THE LAST THINGS. 359 

think of an identity in particulars. Our Lord's is 
clearly the pattern of the new body (Pliilippians iii. 
21). His risen "body was the same, for he was at 
once recognized; and yet it is evident from the nar- 
rative that considerable change had taken place. 
The body undergoes great changes on earth without 
impairing of identity. 

| 327. Lutheran Emphasis. 

Lutheran divines lay great stress on the glorifica- 
tion of the body, as a pledge and earnest of the glo- 
rification of all nature, which they find in Eomans 
viii. 19-23. The natural interpretation of the words 
is certainly in their favor, and there are other hints 
of a great physical transformation. 2 Peter iii. 11-13; 
Revelation xxi. I. 1 

IV. THE LAST JUDGMENT. 

I 328. The New Testament Doctrine. 

The doctrine is found in the Apostles' and Xicene 
Creeds, and is exceedingly prominent in the New 
Testament. In all the descriptions given of the 
Judgment, it is represented as universal, Matthew 
xxv. 32; Hebrews ix. 27 ? and yet individual, Romans 
ii. 6; 2 Corinthians v. 10. The person of the Judge, 
fitted for his office by divine and human attributes, 
is specially noted, John v. 22, 27; Acts xvii. 31; Eo- 
mans ii. 16. The divine character is the supreme 
guarantee for the rectitude of the judgment, Genesis 
xviii. 25. It will be according to men's deserts, Ko- 

1 Jackson, Works, Bk. xi. chs. xiii.-xvi. ; Blunt, Diet. Theol., 
art. "Resurrection of Body;" Donne, Sermons on Easter Day, 
i. 307; South, Serm. xlii. on General Resurrection. 



360 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

mans ii. 6; 2 Corinthians v. 10. Romans ii. 12-14 
gives a significant glimpse into the rules of the final 
Judgment. Men's knowledge and opportunity will 
be strictly regarded. "As many as have sinned 
without law shall also perish without law." They 
who sin perish, and the nature of the sin measures 
the punishment. There are "many stripes" and 
"few stripes," Luke xii. 47, 48. These Scripture 
principles afford far more effectual relief in all ques- 
tionings respecting the future of our fellow-crea- 
tures than arbitrary theories of our own. 

V. ETERNAL LIFE AND DEATH. 

1 829. Blessedness of the Righteous. 
The chief point to be remembered in respect to the 
nature of this blessedness is the continuity of the 
present with the future life. The present is to the 
future as the sowing to the reaping, Galatians vi. 7, 
8. As the service is moral, so the reward is moral, 
Matthew xxv. 21; Romans ii. 7; 2 Timothy iv. 7, 8; 
Revelation ii. 10. The future reward is often spoken 
of comprehensively as life, eternal life; and yet it is 
certain that this life is already enjoyed, John iii. 36; 
1 John v. 11, 12. It can only be, then, a higher de- 
gree of all that constitutes religious character and 
happiness at present. This view is confirmed by an- 
other favorite phrase for the heavenly state, "glory" 
(Hebrews ii. 10; Colossians iii. 4; John xvii. 24; Ro- 
mans v. 2, viii. 18; 2 Corinthians iv. 17), which can., 
only mean the sum of moral and spiritual perfection, 
the perfect development of every capacity, the per- 
fect satisfaction of every desire. The gorgeous im- 
agery of Revelation xxi. needs a spiritual interpreta- 



THE LAST THINGS. 361 

tion, which only vision can perfectly give. It is sig- 
nificant that material creation is ransacked for im- 
ages of beauty and splendor. Yet some of the sim- 
ple statements of Scripture say even more to the de- 
vout heart, for in speaking of spiritual gifts and joys 
they speak of what is matter of present experience, 
Psalm xvii. 15; John xiv. 2, 3, xvii. 21; 1 Corinthians 
xiii. 12; Ephesians iv. 27; Philippians i. 23, iii. 11; 1 
John iii. 2. 

My knowledge of that life is small, 

The eye of faith is dim ; 
But 'tis enough that Christ knows all, 

^And I shall be with him. 

The perfection is individual, including the bodily 
(Philippians iii. 21; 1 Corinthians xv.) and mental 
powers (1 Corinthians xiii. 12), and social. That is 
the perfected kingdom of God, the scene of perfect 
service and perfect rest (Revelation vii. 11-17). Cic- 
ero's beautiful anticipation, one of the noblest utter- 
ances of the heathen world on the subject, will be 
more than realized: "O prseclarum diem, cum in 
illud divinum animorum concilium coetumque pro- 
ficiscar cumque ex hac turba et colluvione discedam! 
Proficiscar enim non ad eos solum viros, de quibus 
ante dixi, verum etiam ad Catonem meum, quo nemo 
vir melior natus est, nemo pietate pnestantior; cujus 
a me corpus est crematum— quod contra decuit ab 
illo meum — animus vero non me deserens, sed re- 
spectans in ea profecto loca discessit, quo mihi ipsi 
cernebat esse veniendum: quem ego meum casum 
f ortiter f erre visus sum, non quo aequo animo f errem, 
sed me ipse consolabar existimans non longinquum 
inter nos digressum et discessum fore. Quod si in 



362 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

lioc erro 3 qui amnios hominuru immortales esse cre- 
dam, libenter erro ; nee milii hune errorem, quo de- 
lector, duni vivo, extorqueri volo; sin mortuus, ut 
quidani minuti pliilosophi 1 censent, nihil sentiam, 
non vereor ne hunc errorem meum pliilosophi mortui 
irrideant'-: De Senect. xxiii. 

\ 330. Eternal Punisliment. 

The question of the duration of future punishment 
is, for the believer in Scripture, entirely one of inter- 
pretation. If we are satisfied on this point, we have 
no fear that difficulties raised on other grounds will 
not be removed either now or hereafter. In Mat- 
thew xxv. 31-46, Christ is treating expressly and for- 
mally on the subject, and he describes the issue of 
the judgment thus: " These shall go away into eter- 
nal 2 punishment; but the righteous unto eternal 
life." "Eternal punishment" is evidently equiva- 
lent to "the eternal fire" of verse 41. Both the 
words have been tortured in every possible way to 
compel them to contradict themselves, but they ob- 
stinately refuse to do so; they emerge from every or- 
deal unchanged. 3 Indeed, every false theory — uni- 
versalism, annihilationism, future probation — is 
wrecked on them. Xo weapon has yet been forged 
against them which does not bear with equal force 
against the other words, "eternal life." If it is said 
that we ought not to stake so tremendous a doctrine 
on a single passage, we deny that we do so. The 

1 The Epicureans. Bp. Berkeley's Minute Philosopher. 2 See 
Note at end. 3 " Punishment" occurs again in 1 John iv. IS, 
where it would be difficult to translate " pruning, correction, 
discipline," etc. 



THE LAST THINGS. 363 

natural sense of these words of Christ is borne out 
by many other passages, interpreted fairly, and by 
the entire strain of Scripture teaching. More may 
be said against other passages, and this fact seems 
to weaken their testimony, but it is only in appear- 
ance. They are not as doubtful or ambiguous as is 
represented; and even if they were, the rule is to in- 
terpret the obscure by the plain, not the converse. 
However, these words of Christ are plain enough. 
And he knew what he was speaking about. He 
cared both for God's honor and man's happiness as 
none else does or can. 

I 331. Matthew v., xviii., and Mark ix. 
In Matthew v. 29, 30, xviii. 8, 9; Mark ix. 43-48, we 
have the stern sayings respecting the right eye and 
hand and foot. The terms in which the alternative 
is stated differ somewhat, but the meaning is the 
same — "cast into hell, into the eternal fire, into hell 
fire, into the unquenchable fire, where their worm 
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Whatever 
amount of figurative expression may be here, the in- 
tention plainly is to exclude the idea of termination. 
The variation of phraseology, too, shows that the 
expressions are synonymous. "Hell" is explained 
by the other phrases. On any theory of universal- 
ism or annihilation Christ's words are not true, for 
then there is termination, the fire is not eternal, not 
unquenchable, the worm does die, the fire is 
quenched. At the very least, we must say that the 
language used is needlessly strong and calculated to 

mislead. 

\ 332. Hades in Luke xvi. 

The description of Hades in Luke xvi. agrees with 



364 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

that of the Judgment in Matthew xxv. : " Between us 

and you there is a great gulf fixed, that they which 
would pass from hence to you may not be able, and 
that none may cross over from them to us," verse 26. 
The "gulf" is figurative, but the idea it naturally ex- 
presses is that of an irrevocable separation, the im- 
possibility of transition from one state to another. 
Otherwise, why was it used, what does it express? 
We should then, again, have to say that Christ's lan- 
guage was too strong, and therefore misleading. 
This meaning is borne out by the prayer put into 
Dives's mouth. that a messenger maybe sent to those 
yet living. "For them change is possible, though 
not for us!" On the theory of universalism. all do 
"cross over from thence to us." so that there is no 
gulf fixed; and on the other theory. Dives and the 
gulf, and the whole class on one side of it. are anni- 
hilated, there is no permanent separation. Then the 
representation is an untrue one. It has been said 
that the parable applies to Hades only, not to the 
state after the Last Judgment. But a fortiori if no 
change is possible before, none is possible after 
Judgment. It would be extraordinary to make the 
latter state more flexible than the former one. How 
would this square with Matthew xxv.? 

£333. Other Sayings of Christ. 

A number of other sayings of Christ are of the 
same kind. He says of the betrayer. "It were good 
for that man if he had not been born." Matthew 
xxvi. 24. If less than irremediable ruin had been 
meant, surely other language would have been used. 
"Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which 



THE LAST THINGS. 365 

believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone 
were hanged . about his neck, and that he were 
drowned in the depth of the sea," xviii. 6. In Mat- 
thew x. 28, "Fear not them which kill the body, but 
are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him 
which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," 
the change from "kill" to "destroy'' is not without 
reason. What can it mean but that the body may 
be killed but not the soul, that destroying and kill- 
ing mean different things? In the parallel place 
(Luke xii. 4) the phrase is simply "cast into hell." 
To be cast into hell is to be destroyed. Christ says 
to the unbelieving Jews, "I go my way, and ye shall 
seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go ye 
cannot come." If these words do not mean abso- 
lute exclusion, what words can? So, Christ's 
words, "I never knew you, depart from me" (Mat- 
thew vii. 23), and "Depart from me, ye cursed" (xxv. 
41), are not final on the doctrine of universalism, and 
they bear a strange meaning on the other theory. 

\ 334. Tenor of Christ's Teaching. 
The general strain of Christ's teaching in such 
parables as those of the Tares, the Xet, the Marriage 
Feast, the Wise and Foolish Virgins, the Talents 
and Pounds, supports the common and ancient doc- 
trine. That doctrine is their most natural explana- 
tion. More or less violence is necessary to make 
them agree with any other doctrine. It is useless to 
say that they are parables, and therefore not to be 
interpreted strictly. Have they any meaning at all? 
If so, what is it? Do they, or do they not, teach the 
lesson of trust abused, opportunity lost, and final 
exclusion and rejection as the result? If they do, 



366 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

what is the trust or opportunity meant? To refer it 
to secular trusts and responsibilities would make 
Christ a teacher of trivial commonplaces, in the 
style of eighteenth-century essayists. It would be 
altogether out of keeping with the elevation and 
grandeur of the rest of his teaching. After the par- 
abolic veil is stripped away, the truth taught is clear 
enough. In no conceivable way is universalism rec- 
oncilable with these parables. The last word of the 
parables is the rejection and exclusion of some; the 
last word of universalism is the recovery of all. 
They do not simply lose all meaning, their obvious 
meaning is reversed. As to probation after death 
or annihilation, it can only be said that the parables 
are silent on the subject, which is condemnation 
enough. The parables know nothing of them. If 
we may add these theories, we may add any of the 
thousand and one theories which the fertility of hu- 
man fancy has invented. If, indeed, they are to be 
found elsewhere in the New Testament, we may add 
them here, but not otherwise; and on this point more 
will be said. 

§335. Tenor of Scripture. 

We refer not only to the general strain of Christ's 
teaching, but to the general strain of Scripture 
teaching as evidenced in the doctrine of the urgency ■ 
of immediate repentance, the absolute evil of sin, 
the absolute necessity and value of redemption. 
All the other theories reduce the gravity of these 
doctrines in a greater or less degree. Anything 
that weakens the motives against sin, or lowers the 
value of redemption, is dangerous, and certainly is 
not in the spirit of Scripture. The Church has al- 



THE LAST THINGS. 367 

ways rightly felt that nothing short of an absolute 
necessity could justify the Incarnation and Atone- 
ment. On the doctrine of a general future proba- 
tion, the hearer may truly say, in answer to God's 
command to "all men everywhere to repent": "My 
decision noy^ is not a final one. I may use this life 
as I choose. The way of return will be just as open 
to me after death as before. It is only a question 
of a longer delay." On the theory of universalism, 
he has still longer scope and wider license. He 
knows that all things are working for his good in 
the end. He cannot finally perish. As to annihila- 
tion, he will probably welcome the thought. 

Speaking of those "who obey not the gospel of the 
Lord Jesus/' St. Paul says, "who shall suffer pun- 
ishment, eternal destruction (oXeOpov aldviov) from the 
face of the Lord." "A testimony to the eternity of 
future punishment that is not easy to be explained 
away" (Ellicott). If "destruction" is to be under- 
stood literally, as the annihilation theory says, 
"eternal" is superfluous. "Angels which kept not 
their own principality, but left their proper habita- 
tion, he hath kept in everlasting bonds (8eo- ( uotsdz8tW) 
under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about 
them, having in like manner with these given them- 
selves over to fornication, and gone after strange 
flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the pun- 
ishment of eternal fire" (trvpbs oIwlov) Jude 6, 7. 
Sodom and Gomorrah mean the people of these 
places ("giving themselves over," etc.). As their 
case is compared to that of the angels ("even as"), 
^everlasting bonds" and "eternal fire" must be 



368 DOCTEINES OF BEDEMPTION. 

equivalent. Compare also " eternal life" (£wr/v oiwiov), 
verse 21. 

I 336. Death, and Destruction. 

The terms "death" and " destruction " (Odvaros, 
dTTwAaa, etc.), used in reference to the future of the 
wicked, express the same idea of finality, Romans 
vi. 23; John iii. 16, 36, etc. The supporters of the 
annihilation theory understand by these terms a lit- 
eral death or destruction of the soul; and as this is 
the main pillar of the theory, we must consider it. 
Our position is that the words denote a certain 
moral state or condition over and above mere exist- 
ence. The meaning of the terms must surely be 
measured and determined by that of their opposites, 
"life" and "salvation." There are no words used 
more frequently than these to express what men re- 
ceive through faith. "Life" is often thus used 
alone, John iii. 36, v. 10, vi. 51, 53, x. 10; 1 John v. 
12; Romans viii. 6; 2 Corinthians ii. 16, etc. "Salva- 
tion" is still more common, Romans i. 16, etc. What 
is it, then, that Christ came to give? What is it 
men receive when they believe in him? It is not 
spiritual existence. That they already have. Their 
souls exist already. Life is more than existence; it 
is a certain definite kind of existence. What Christ 
gives to those who believe on him is pardon, the new 
birth, holiness, adoption, fellowship with God. All 
these are compendiously summed up as life or sal- 
vation. And death and destruction, as the opposite 
of life and salvation, must mean the absence or loss 
of these blessings, Philippians i. 28. If life or sal- 
vation does not include the gift of bare existence, 
death or destruction does not include the loss of it. 



THE LAST THINGS. 369 

Besides, salvation explains life. When the gift of 
Christ to man is called by one or the other name in- 
differently, their meaning is plainly the same. And 
in the phrase, "eternal life/' life must have the same 
meaning. 

Men in a state of sin are described as dead: "You 
did he quicken, when ye were dead through your 
trespasses and sins," Ephesians ii. 1; Colossians ii. 
13. Xot "ye were doomed to death, or on the way 
to death, or dying," but "were dead" (ovras veKpovs). 
Dead "through" sin. The sin itself is not death, but 
its cause. What then is death but the state of guilt, 
condemnation, enmity, and separation from God, 
which is the opposite of the state of reconciliation? 
Scripture habitually speaks of life as a present pos- 
session, of which eternal life is the continuance. 
Death, too, is a present state. Future death is its 
continuance. "He that heareth my word, and be- 
lieveth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and 
cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of 
death into life " (John v. 24). Here, again, death and 
life are two opposite spiritual states experienced 
now. "This is life eternal, that they should know 
thee, the only true God, and him whom thou didst 
send, Jesus Christ" (John xvii. 3). The description 
refers to the noun "life," which again appears as a 
moral state or character, apart from mere existence. 1 
It may be replied, that even on this interpretation 

1 " The definition or description of John xvii. 3 seems to me 
to give the true, highest meaning of the noun, leaving the adjec- 
tive with its received connotation of indefinite duration, raised 
in this instance at least to that of perpetuity": Plntnptre, 
Spirits in Prison, p. 366. 
- 24 



370 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

the terms no more exclude the possibility of recov- 
ery after death than in this life. Of course the 
terms themselves do not necessarily exclude it. 
This must be determined on other testimony. In 
the present life we have a great scheme of recovery 
set up and at work, while there is no hint of any- 
thing of the kind in the next life. 

When, then, it is said that life and death in refer- 
ence to the soul must include mere existence as well 
as higher gifts, we reply, here are cases in which 
they cannot include this. Persons receive the new 
life who do not receive mere existence, for their 
souls already exist ; and persons are said to be dead 
who have not lost existence, for they still exist. 

§ 337. Figure and Metaphor. 
Nothing is more common or more natural than 
the usage of speech, which raises words from phys- 
ical to moral meanings. Indeed, we can do noth- 
ing else when we want to express spiritual ideas. 
There is not one of our names for spiritual things 
which has not a physical basis or origin. The very 
term " spirit" itself is borrowed from a material 
thing. To say, "We don't like figures and meta- 
phors; we prefer the literal,' 5 is, to say the least, not 
very thoughtful talk. What of such terms as ap- 
prehension, perception, and the like? The fact is 
that the higher meaning of such words as life and 
death is as much their real meaning as the lower 
one. In one connection they bear one, in another 
the other, sense. Why should there be more diffi- 
culty about them than about light and darkness, 
which are constantly used in Scripture and else- 
where in both ways? Suppose some one to say: 



THE LAST THINGS. 371 

"We will not hear of figure and metaphor. It is 
this sort of interpretation which has darkened (?) 
Scripture. We are plain, literal people. Wherever 
light and darkness occur, whatever higher things 
they may mean, they must include literal light and 
darkness." The same may be said of cleansing, re- 
demption, and every great spiritual idea. Suppose, 
when our Lord speaks of the Xew Birth, we were to 
insist that this must mean a literal birth of the soul 
a second time. This it must mean, whatever else it 
may mean. Should we not deserve a sharper re- 
buke than Xicodemus? And yet this is the kind 
of argument by which the annihilation theory is 
supported. 

I 388. A Few More Examples. 

Let us take a few more examples. In Luke xix. 
10, Christ says that he came "to seek and to save 
that which was lost" (to dTroAoAos, allied to the words 
used for destruction, destroy, perish). So the Jews 
are "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." In what 
sense lost, perished, destroyed? Not annihilated, 
passed out of existence. Lost, destroyed morally 
and spiritually, as living men may be. We habitu- 
ally speak of a man as lost who is given up to sin, of 
a country as lost which has fallen into disorder and 
bondage, of a fortune as lost which has passed into 
another's possession. In Luke xv. we read of the 
lost sheep, and coin, and son. "My son was dead, 
and is alive again; he was lost, and is found" (verse 
24). In all such cases the reason of the usage of lan- 
guage is simple enough. When anything has failed 
in the end for which it exists, still more when it is 



perverted to a contrary end, it is lost, destroyed, it 



372 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

has perished. 1 It may continue to exist and act as 
really as ever, but in respect to the end of its being 
and the will of its rightful owner it is lost. 2 

| 338. Fate of the Heathen. 

It is often said that the acceptance of the teaching 
of Scripture on Eternal Punishment involves belief 
in the eternal ruin of heathen millions, and of multi- 
tudes who have had no means of Christian knowl- 
edge. And nothing so often drives men to other 
theories as this supposition. 3 Yet nothing can be 
more remote from fact. Scripture speaks of the 
doom of those who disbelieve and disobey Christ, 
John iii. 36; 2 Thessalonians i. 8. Of others it 
speaks only in general terms. Of others, therefore, 
we need decide nothing. Eesponsibility implies 
knowledge and means of knowledge; indeed, one is 
the measure of the other. As to those who are cut 
off from knowledge, we are quite sure that they will 
be dealt with justly; and we can believe no more, for 

1 ' ( To what purpose is this waste (G-o/^a)?" (Matt, xxvi 8.) 
The end of the ointment, in the disciples' thoughts, was to be 
sold, and the proceeds to be devoted to the poor. Its diver- 
sion to another end was " destruction " in their judgment. 
2 See essay on " Conditional Immortality," in Dr. Plumptre's 
Spirits in Prison. "I submit as the result of this induction, 1. 
That there is absolutely no ground for identifying the words 
c destroy,' i perish/ and their cognate forms, as used by the New 
Testament writers, with the cessation of conscious existence; 
2. That as used by them they speak (1) of a state of failure, 
ruin, frustration, not necessarily irremediable, and (2) of phys- 
ical death " : p. 327. See also 2 Pet, iii. 6, 7. 3 Even a Calvin- 
ist, Dr. Hodge, says: "We have reason to believe that the lost 
will bear to the saved no greater proportion than the inmates 
of a prison do to the mass of a community." 



THE LAST THINGS. 373 

we are told no more. We have already referred to 
Romans ii. 12-15. Let us not suppose that the 
heathen are innocent beings, incapable of sin. They 
have both moral knowledge and moral law. They 
know much, and might know more, Romans i. 18-23. 
They sin willfully. The character and amount of 
their sin will determine the character and amount of 
their punishment; and the character and amount of 
their sin will depend on the opportunities of knowl- 
edge within their reach. But this is not the condi- 
tion of those who form ordinary Christian congrega- 
tions. We need be in no doubt as to their full re- 
sponsibility. 

\ 340. Difficulties and Mysteries. 
When we are confronted with the thought of the 
eternal existence of sin, the apparent disproportion 
between sin and its penalties, and the fearful power 
of finality placed in man's hands, we are far from 
denying the difficulty. We only recall the fact that 
they are not the only difficulties. The actual exist- 
ence of sin, and the enormous misery and suffering 
it has wrought in human life, are as great mysteries, 
perhaps greater. But it w T ould be no relief to re- 
nounce faith in an infinite mercy and justice and 
power. The burden of mystery would stand there 
still, looming as huge and black as ever. The seen 
is full of mystery. Can we expect the unseen to be 
perfectly clear? Is there no apparent dispropor- 
tion between acts and their consequences in this 
life? The decision, once made, goes on working out 
its destiny beyond power of recall. And this re- 
minds us that the principle of finality is at work in 
this life in every sphere. Man is constantly obliged 



374 DOCTBINES OF ESDEMPTION. 

to make decisions, which he knows are final. Be- 
sides, what reason have we to expect freedom from 
all mystery in this any more than in other subjects 
of religious knowledge? 

\ 341. Conclusion. 

Writers on this question often forget that the law 
of cause and effect applies as much to the moral 
world as to the physical. True, moral causes are 
of a different kind. They act freely, they discrimi- 
nate and choose between different courses; but they 
are causes. The evil course chosen, the sinful act 
done, the consequence is as inevitable as any phys- 
ical one. We do not say that all moral penalty fol- 
lows in this manner; but without doubt a great deal 
does. In the moral world, as elsewhere, God has es- 
tablished certain laws, which have this peculiarity, 
that they execute themselves, they do not need ex- 
ternal aid to insure the reward and punishment of 
those who keep and break them. There are doubt- 
less positive penalties as well. It is only just that 
under a government so intensely personal as God's 
there should be such. But the law of cause and con- 
sequence is enough to explain all that is essential in 
Scripture teaching. " Whatsoever a man soweth, 
that shall he also reap." 

Another thing which is often forgotten is the ter- 
ribly corrupting, degrading power of sin. And yet 
there is no truth more frequently illustrated in hu- 
man life. We constantly see the action of sin in de- 
stroying all that is fair and noble in human charac- 
ter, in turning men into brutes and demons. And 
this so rapidly. A few years or months are enough 
to do the deadly work. Nor need this work stop at 



THE LAST THINGS. 375 

death. The sinful principle is still active. When 
the separation between the righteous and wicked 
takes place, as Scripture states, when the restraints 
of goodness and the agencies of grace are with- 
drawn, where is the restoring power to come from? 
The mere fact of a special divine interposition in re- 
demption supposes that fallen human nature has no 
self-restorative power. Human nature, subjected 
to the action of sin for long years, must be in a still 
worse condition. When character is fixed, and that 
point is visible only to God's eye, hope is possible 
no longer. 1 

The laws and principles just referred to are no 
hypothetical abstractions, but governing realities in 
the present life. The teaching of Scripture on this 
dread subject is only farther in advance on the same 
line. We require no arbitrary will or decree of God 
to explain it. Men make their own character, and 
character makes destiny. They will only suffer 
from what they choose. We fail to see the injustice 
of such a constitution of things. There is much in- 
equality, much injustice, in the present stage of be- 
ing. But this stage is only preliminary. We look 
to the future state, to the world's great assize, as the 
scene of perfect right and perfect justice. Scripture 
justifies the expectation (Luke xvi. 25), and God will 
not disappoint the expectation which his hand has 
implanted deep in our nature, and which his Word 
warrants. 

1 " The great mystery of religion is not the punishment, but 
the forgiveness, of sin ; not the natural permanence of charac- 
ter, but spiritual regeneration " : Westcott. 



376 DOCTEINES OF EEDEMPTION. 

g 342. Other Theories : Probation After Death. 

These have been considered by anticipation, but a 
few other remarks on them may be useful. 

Probation after death for exceptional classes is a 
common opinion. But to assert categorically that 
it is in this particular way that God deals with such 
classes is to dogmatize on a question of mode, on 
which silence were the better wisdom. The charac- 
ter of God and the degrees of destiny are sufficient 
ground to fall back upon. Could there be a proba- 
tion for the bad and not for the good? How can we 
say that one class is fixed, settled in character, and 
the other not? As for the Scripture evidence, it is 
very slight. It is impossible to explain why, if pro- 
bation does not cover the future life as well as the 
present, so much is said about one part and nothing 
about the other. Even granting, what is by no 
means certain, that 1 Peter iii. 18-20 refers to a 
preaching of Christ in Hades, this makes very little 
for a doctrine of probation. The doctrine can only 
be imported into the text by taking Christ's sup- 
posed action as a " representative instance" of what 
is done in other cases. 

\ 343. Universalism. 
Universalism has many attractions. Everyone 
would wish all to be saved. Xo one wishes it as 
God himself does, 1 Timothy ii. 4 But we are met 
by facts of Scripture, of human nature and life. 
Wishes are often a poor guide to truth. We could 
wish that there had been no sin, no death, no sorrow, 
no ruined lives and broken hearts. No doubt, if 
such a passage as Romans v. 12-21 stood alone, uni- 



THE LAST THINGS. 377 

versalism might plausibly be argued from it, but 
it does not. It is nothing more than a broad out- 
line, which is abundantly supplemented elsewhere. 
It deals with the divine purpose, which indeed is uni- 
versal, but which depends for its realization on con- 
ditions fixed by God himself. Particular texts, like 
Colossians i. 20, have other meanings. 

This theory supposes probation to continue here- 
after as in this world. If so, of course it must be for 
good as well as bad. Only moral means of conver- 
sion are admissible. The process must go on until 
the last human will has been brought to obedience. 
That such an issue will ever be realized, no one can 
know independently. Scripture certainly gives a 
very different account of the future, and its account 
agrees best with the facts of the present life. The 
theory quite does away with the finality of the judg- 
ment in Matthew xx^., indeed with the Judgment al- 
together. The picture there drawn may be graphic, 
but it is the opposite of the truth. 

Extreme Universalism rejects the notion of the 
possibility of any soul being finally lost, for reasons 
drawn from the divine character. On such a doc- 
trine the work of redemption was quite superfluous. 
It could only accelerate a result which is certain in 
any case. Christian (?) Universalism seems to dis- 
claim such high speculative grounds, and to be con- 
tent with the hope of what will be. Redemption 
then becomes the means of effecting the result. 
This doctrine has to confront the facts of Scripture 
and human life already referred to, facts which do 
not greatly favor extreme forms of benevolent op- 
timism. Origen in ancient times held universalism 



378 DOCTKINES OE REDEMPTION. 

in its widest extent, and lie was followed in this re- 
spect by Gregory of Nyssa (fourth century). In 
modern times there has been a good deal of latent as 
well as expressed uniyersaiism. In Germany Eothe 
may be mentioned as an example, in England Mau- 
rice. 1 

$344. Annihilation or Conditional Immortality. 

The Theory of the Annihilation of the Wicked, or 
Conditional Immortality, has far less attractiveness. 
Its views of human nature cannot be pronounced 
high or noble. Its chief position is the natural mor- 
tality of the human soul — immortality, like the spir- 
itual gifts of pardon and holiness, being conferred 
only on those who believe in Christ. This it main- 
tains to be the doctrine of Scripture. The principal 
argument drawn from Scripture, the meaning of the 
terms death and destruction, has been sufficiently 
considered. A few other points are worthy of no- 
tice. 

The idea of man's natural immortality, it is al- 
leged, w^as imported into Christian thought from 
Greek philosophy, and is an instance of the corrup- 
tion of truth due to heathen influence. We know 
that many early corruptions of belief and practice 
were importations from heathenism; but if this view 
of man's nature came from this source, we should 
not regard it as a corruption. On the contrary, it is 
distinctly a nobler doctrine. In that case Plato is 
in advance of Paul. But we altogether doubt the 
alleged fact, for the simple reason that the Christian 
certainty of immortality in the New Testament and 

1 Blunt, Diet. TheoL, art. "TTniversalism." 



THE LAST THINGS. 379 

the early Church is far in advance of heathen opin- 
ion. We know that Greek and Soman writers say 
much that is noble on the subject. Addison indeed 
says that Plato reasoned well on immortality. But 
the belief amounted rather to hope and opinion than 
conviction. The pathetic uncertainty as to the fu- 
ture even of Socrates in his last hours is well known. 
Cicero tells us that while he was reading Plato his 
hope of immortality burned with a clear, steady 
light, but directly he closed the book it died away. 
At the close of the passage quoted on pp. 361, 362, he 
says: "Quod si non sumus immortales futuri, tamen 
exstingui homini suo tempore optabile est; nam ha- 
bet natura ut aliarum rerum omnium, sic vivendi 
niodum." How different from these uncertain wish- 
ings and guessings the unwavering faith of the 
Christian Church in man's immortal destiny! To 
say that heathen philosophy gave the Church this 
immovable faith, is to say that it gave what it did 
not itself possess. The truth is, the common people 
probably had a firmer conviction than the philoso- 
phers. The belief is one of the universal religious 
ideas of mankind. It is present in some form in 
every country and every religious system. The 
speculation of philosophers first breeds skepticism. 
According to the advocates of this theory, the ex- 
tinction of the wicked takes place at the Last Judg- 
ment, not at death. In the intermediate period pro- 
bation continues as at present. The necessity of 
putting the destruction at the Judgment, rather than 
at death, arises of course from the necessity of pro- 
viding for the Judgment as described in Scripture. 
Thus, the wicked are raised from the dead in order 



380 DOCTRINES OF REDEMPTION. 

to be again destroyed body and soul at once. No 
doubt different degrees of suffering are admitted in 
the intermediate period; but as regards the death or 
destruction itself, which as the sentence of the Judge 
is the proper penalty of sin, it is the same for all. 
There is but one and the same penalty for infinite 
varieties and degrees of guilt. 

The Incarnation and Atonement took place for 
mortal souls! The only difference in this vital re- 
spect between men and animals is that the former 
have a capacity for immortality. This also is the 
only difference between this theory and the teaching 
of infidelity and materialism. Barring this capaci- 
ty, men are animals, only animals. And to such be- 
ings we preach God, a divine life, a Christlike moral- 
ity! But in doing so we are deprived of the strong- 
est ground of appeal, namely, the fact of an immor- 
tal nature and destiny desecrated and thrown away. 
We cannot tell men that an earthly, sinful life is in 
contradiction to anything which they already are 
and have. All the motives based on immortality as 
a fact, on the alternative of immortal bliss or im- 
mortal woe, are cut off at a stroke. We tell the 
wicked that at the worst they cannot be punished 
beyond a certain term; and if we shorten the term 
so much, they will shorten it more. They do not 
throw away immortality, for they never had it. Our 
forces of appeal are thus immeasurably weakened. 
Samson shorn of his locks becomes a type of the 
Christian Church. 1 

Immortality is a natural, not a moral, gift. All 

1 See a noble passage in Liddon, Some Elements of Keligion, 
p. 120. 



THE LAST THINGS. 381 

the other gifts of redemption are moral. Leaving 
man's nature intact, they alter its quality or charac- 
ter. They make it good, righteous, pure; they fill it 
with love, truth, holiness, no more. The presence or 
absence of immortality, on the other hand, is a dif- 
ference of natural constitution. It may be a ques- 
tion whether mortal and immortal beings are not 
distinct orders. At all events, the change made in 
making a mortal being immortal is altogether of a 
different kind from a moral change, and has no anal- 
ogy to support it. The improbability of such a 
change can only be met by very definite statement or 
conclusive proof. 

Kef erring to this theory, Dr. Plumptre says: 
" Whatever support that view may derive from a 
narrow and almost slavish literalism in its interpre- 
tation of Scripture, it must be rejected as at variance 
with the intuitive beliefs w r hich all God's later rev- 
elation presupposes, at variance also with the mean- 
ing of Scripture when w r e pass beyond the letter to 
the truths which it represents." 1 

§ 345. Note on Significance of Eternal. 
The adjective aluvtos is often represented as of 
utterly indefinite, ambiguous meaning. It is even 
questioned whether it means duration at all. If it 
does, it is alleged, it means merely indefinite dura- 
tion, not necessarily or usually unlimited duration. 
Certainly it does not mean this or anything, necessa- 
rily. Meanings of words are governed much more 
by usage than derivation. How the temporal sense 
should be questioned is strange, seeing that the basis 
of the meaning of alwv is duration. 

1 Spirits in Prison, p. 16, 



3S2 DOCTKINES OF REDEMPTION. 

On the second point, whether the usual meaning 
is indefinite or unlimited duration, it might be 
enough to ask. If this is not the New Testament 
word for eternal, what is? Is it atSios? This only 
occurs in two passages, Eomans i. 20 and Jude 6. 
Will it be pretended that these are the only New 
Testament passages in which the idea occurs? 

We are quite at a loss to discover the grounds for 
the charge of ambiguity brought against the word. 
If anyone will examine the Xew Testament usage 
for himself, instead of trusting to general assertions, 
he will be in the same perplexity. The term occurs 
in the Xew Testament seventy-one times. Of these, 
in forty-four cases it qualifies "life/ 3 where it cer- 
tainly means " eternal." Or, if it does not, life is 
never so called. In relation to the present subject, 
it qualifies "fire" thrice (Matthew xviii. 8, xxv. 11; 
Jude 7). punishment (Matthew xxv. 46), judgment 
(Mark iii. 29; Hebrews vi. 2), destruction (2 Thessa- 
lonians i. 9). In the other cases it describes ^taber- 
nacles" in future state (Luke xvi. 9), redemption (He- 
brews ix. 12). Spirit (Hebrews ix. 14), inheritance 
(Hebrews ix. 15). covenant (Hebrews xiii. 20), salva- 
tion (Hebrews v. 9), kingdom (2 Peter i. 11). gospel 
(Bevelation xiv. 6), God (Eomans xvi. 26; cf. Septua- 
gint. Genesis xxi. 33). times (Eomans xvi. 25; 1 Tim- 
othy i. 9; Titus i. 2), glory (2 Corinthians iv. 17; 2 
Timothy ii. 10: 1 Peter v. 10). unseen things (2 Corin- 
thians iv. IS), house in heaven (2 Corinthians v. 1), 
consolation (2 Thessalonians ii. 16), power (1 Tim- 
othy vi. 16), the restoration of Onesimus to his mas- 
ter (Philemon 15). These are all the cases in the 
Xew Testament. Let anyone go over them and see 



THE LAST THINGS. 383 

what ground there is for the alleged uncertainty in 
the meaning of the word. What is gained by not 
translating the word, i. e., by using sounds without 
sense? "Aionian" God, salvation, Spirit, gospel, 
glory, kingdom! What does this mean? The pas- 
sage in Philemon may seem doubtful. But was not 
Onesimus restored to Philemon forever? The im- 
plicit reference evidently is to the conversion of 
Onesimus, "whom I have begotten in my bonds," 
verse 10. This has established a union that will 
never cease. 

But this is not all the case. In addition to the ad- 
jective cuoivios, the noun ald>v is used in combina- 
tion with prepositions sixty-seven times in the Xew 
Testament to express the same idea of unlimited du- 
ration. The use in doxologies to God is surely con- 
clusive, as tovs ataWs (Bonians 1. 25), ds trao-as tcls 
yereas tov altovos tCjv aluvoiv (Ephesians iil. 21), ets 

Travra? tovs aiwvas (Jude 25). These sixty-seven in- 
stances are all. In all, if eternal duration is not 
meant, what is? There is no exception. In all 
questions of meanings of words, the meanings of 
other forms of the same word are important evi- 
dence. If the use of the noun in these phrases con- 
firmed the vague, uncertain meaning alleged, the 
fact would be felt to be of no mean weight. 

We turn to the Old Testament. The adjective is 
used in the Septuagint eighty-two times, thrice of 
God (Genesis xxi. 33; Isaiah xl. 28, xxvi. 4). It is 
used of the divine covenant seventeen times, of di- 
vine ordinances twenty-one times. If all the cases 
were given here, as in the Xew Testament above, it 
would be found hard to give a reason for assigning 



384 DOCTEINES OF KEDEMPTION. 

a limited duration in most cases. The term is ap- 
plied to mountains, kills, and "the bars of the earth" 
(Jonah ii. 6), three times in all. As to the phrase 
" everlasting hills/' it ought not to be made a diffi- 
culty. The poetical use of words does not disprove 
their ordinary use. Xo one can be under mistake as 
to what is meant. But, even granting that as used 
of "covenant, ordinance," and similar things, eter- 
nity in the strict sense cannot be meant, what is the 
explanation? Plainly, in any case the duration is 
vast, no end is thought of; or, to put it in another 
way, the duration is determined by the nature of the 
subject. We are content with this statement. On 
the doctrine that the soul is naturally immortal, 
eternal can only have one meaning in reference to it. 
But the far more common method of describing 
eternity in the Septuagint is the second one men- 
tioned, by oldw and prepositions. In this phraseol- 
ogy the Septuagint copies the Hebrew, which is 
poor in adjectives. All the great references to eter- 
nity are put in this way. The phrase occurs scores 
and scores of times. It may be worth while to quote 
a few examples. "From everlasting to everlasting 

thou art," awb tov aliovos ecos tov aiwvos crv el, Psalm XC. 2. 

"And live forever," /cat f^o-erai eU tov auova, Genesis iii. 
22. " I live forever," Z<£ iyaj &s tov al&va, Deuterono- 
my xxxii. 40. " That inhabiteth eternity," koltolk&v tov 
ataW, Isaiah lvii. 15. Aluv exactly corresponds to the 
Hebrew Olam. 

The use of atcivtos in 2 Corinthians iv. 18 is signifi- 
cant: "The things which are seen are temporal; but 
the things which are not seen are eternal." If 
atwvtos here has no definite temporal meaning, and 



THE LAST THINGS. 385 

if the meaning is not eternal, the antithesis is de- 
stroyed. 

See Dr. Plumptre's essay on "The Word Eternal" 
in The Spirits in Prison. His conclusions are: 
(1) It is not proved that our Lord excluded duration 
from the idea of seonian life. (2) In every book of 
the New Testament, except the writings of St. John, 
I find this connotation as the obvious and natural 
meaning of the word seonian. (3) In St. John I find, 
with Mr. Maurice and Dr. Westcott, the effort to 
make men realize the thought that the eternal life, 
being eternal, exists in the present, has existed al- 
ways in the past. (4) iEonian death is not found in 
Scripture. (5) I find it impossible to conceive of 
life, either human or divine, apart from the idea of 
duration." 

§346. Literature. 

Horbery, Inquiry into the Doctrine of Future 
Punishment; Hamilton, Rewards and Punishments; 
M. Randies, Forever; Rev. W. P>riscombe, Hades 
and Hell; Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison; Rev. W. 
Reid, Everlasting Punishment and Modern Specula- 
tion; Dr. Morris, Is There Salvation After Death? 
25 



INDEX. 



Abelard, 209. 

Acceptilatio, 209. 

Adoptianisin, 178. 

African School, 16. 

Agnosticism, 37, 53. 

Alexandrian School, 17. 

Ames, 42. 

Anaxagoras, 35. 

Anglican Doctrine, 21 ; Rule of 
Faith, 90; Original Sin, 148; 
Satisfaction, 203 ; Predestina- 
tion, 228; Justification, 236; 
Holiness, 264; Church, 275; 
Sacraments, 327; Baptism, 
330; Lord's Supper, 346. 

Annihilationism, 378. 

Anselm, 44, 202, 210, 250. 

Autiochian School, 16. 

Augsburg Confession, 20, 148, 
149, 235, 342. 

Apochrypha, 83, 351. 

Apollinarianism, 175. 

Apostles' Creed, 17, 126, 305. 

Apostolic Fathers, 84, 202. 

Aquinas, 24, 180, 203. 

Arianism, 115, 156, 181. 

Arminianism, 15, 142, 235, 346. 

Athanasian Creed, 18, 108. 

Athanasius, 17, 84, 116, 210, 220. 

Augustine, 17, 41, 104, 108, 127, 
140, 144, 145, 146, 149, 180, 
225, 228, 229, 248, 249, 267. 

Bannerman, 283. 



[Figures refer to pages.] 

Baptism, 311; Mode, 319; In- 
fant, 317; Dogma, 329. 

Baptismal Regeneration, 314. 

Baur, 66, 136. 

Bellarmin, 91, 147, 233, 247, 250, 
340. 

Bengel, 292, 356. 

Binnie, 298. 

Blunt, 17, 22, 23, 24, 50, 52, 69, 
81, 82, 101, 109, 115, 116, 117. 

Bradwardine, 228. 

Brentz, 183. 

Bruce, Dr., 170, 186, 194, 206, 
208, 213, 214. 

Buchanan, 38, 50. 

Buddhism, 57, 58. 

Burton, Dr., 114. 

Bushnell, 193, 212. 

Butler, 43. 



Calvin, 24, 230, 344. 
Calvinism, 225, 230, 235, 249, 

269. 
Campbell, McLeod, 215. 
Candlish, Dr., 329. 
Canon, Muratorian, 87. 
Carthage, Synod of, 83, 144. 
Chalcedon Creed, 177. 
Charnock, 107. 
Chemnitz, 184. 
Christlieb, 50, 52. 
Chrysostom, 17. 
Cicero, 43, 130, 361. 
Circumcision, 309, 317. 

(387) 



388 



INDEX. 



Clarke, Samuel, 45, 181. 
Clement, Alex., 17, 88, 301, 351. 
Clement, Eome, 84, 293, 295. 
Communicatio Idiomatum, 182, 

343. 
Comte, 52. 
Concursus, 131. 
Congregationalism, 15, 277. 
Conscience, 43. 
Constantinople, Council, 17, 121 , 

176, 178. 
Consubstantiation, 183, 343. 
Conversion, 231. 
Cosmological Argument, 31. 
Council, General, 17. 
Cramp, 20, 90. 

Crawford, Dr., 193, 204, 206, etc. 
Creationism, 128. 
Culverwel, 272. 
Cyprian, 17, 88, 301. 
Cyril, Alex., 177, 210. 
Cyril, Jer., 18, 84. 

Damascus, John of, 23, 170. 

Deaconesses, 303. 

Deacons, 302. 

Delitzsch, 129. 

Demonstrative Truth, 8. 

De Quincey, 80. 

Division of East and West, 19. 

Docetism, 174. 

Doctrine and Dogma, 6, 113. 

Dorner, 25, 64, 81, 102, 115, 116, 

123, 126, 180, 206. 
Dualism, 135. 

Duncan, Dr., 109, 176, 177, 226. 
Duns Scotus, 208. 

Ebionitism, 174. 
Edwards, Jonathan, 216. 



Ellicott, 160. 
Ephesus, Council, 144. 
Episcopalianism, 277. 
Erigena, 22. 
Eusebius, 87, 88. 
Eutychianism, 155, 177, 182, 188. 
Evans, Canon, 239, 288, 2S9. 
Evidences, 10, 57. 
Evolution, 126. 
Ex opere operato, 326. 

Fairbairn, 66-68. 
Farindon, 187. 
Farrar, A. S., 23. 
Filioque Clause, 18, 19, 120. 
Finitude, Theory of, 136. 
Flesh and Spirit, 138. 
Flint, Dr., 38, 39, 43, 45, 50. 
Florence, Council of, 352. 
Frankfort Council, 18, 179. 

Generation, Eternal, 117. 
Gifford, Dr., 138, 158, 274. 
Gnosticism, 135. 
Godet, 64, 138, 167. 
Goodwin, 228, 251, 270. 
Gottschalk, 228. 
Gravenhurst, 38. 
Gregory, Great, 210, 352. 
Gregory Nazianzen, 84, 210. 
Gregory, Nyssa, 209, 378. 
Grotius, 222. 

Hades, 348, 363. 
Hagenbach, 26. 
Hindooism, 57. 
Hodge, Dr., 3, 22, 23, 25, 50, 74, 

90, 102. 
Homoousios, lift. 
Hooker, 118, 121, 153, 171, 282, 

293, 300, 337. 



INDEX. 



389 



Hort, 18. 
Hume, 32, 62, 63. 
Hurst, 23. 

Ignatius, St., 296. 
Immanence, 130. 
Imputed Righteousness, 242. 
Independency, 15. 
Infralapsarianism, 226. 
Inspiration, 79. 
Intuition, 8, 29. 
Irenseus, 89, 174, 210, 301. 
Irving, 215. 

Jackson, Dean, 93, 98, 107, 111, 
118, 168, 248, 280, 284, 344. 

Jerome, 83, 84. 

Justification — Nature, 236 ; Con- 
dition, 244. 

Justin Martyr, 85, 89. 

Kant, 43. 

Kenotism, 184, 186. 
Ker, Dr., 170. 
Kuenen, 65. 

Laidlaw, 127, 129. 

Lecky, 61. 

Lee, Dr., 74, 75, 78, 81. 

Liddon, Canon, 155, 170, 380. 

Lightfoot, Bishop, 160, 293, 295, 

300. 
Limborch, 249. 
Literature, 53, 81, 99, 150, 188, 

224, 347, 385. 
Lombard, Peter, 24, 170, 179, 

234. 
Lord's Day, 306. 
Luthardt, 47, 102, 115. 
Luther, 146, 330. 



Lutheranism, 20 ; Original Sin, 
147; Christology, 182; Sacra- 
ments, 327; Baptism, 330; 
Eucharist, 342. 

McCosh, 43, 53, 54. 

Macedonians, 121. 

Magee, 206. 

Manichseism, 126, 136, 147. 

Martensen, 24, 101, 102, 180, 256. 

Materialism, 47, 50, 126. 

Maurice, 194, 214, 378. 

Melanchthou, 24. 

Melito, 83, 84. 

Menken, 215. 

Merit, 256. 

Methodist Doctrine, 21; Origi- 
nal Sin, 146; Repentance, 
231 ; Justification, 238 ; Holi- 
ness, 261 ; Assurance, 270. 

Miley, 25, 149. 

Miracles, 59. 

Mohammedanism, 57, 58. 

Monophysitism, 178. 

Monothelitism, 178. 

Moral Argument, 41. 

Mozley, Dr., 12, 64, 97, 262, 268. 

Muller, 136, 150. 

Mysticism, 21. 

Meander, 26. 

Nestorianism, 155, 176, 186. 
Newman, Cardinal, 97, 116. 
Nicene Creed, 17, 116, 121, 126, 

179. 
Nominalism, 101. 
Norris, Canon, 44, 179, 220. 

Offices, Three, 189. 
Ontological Argument, 43. 



390 



INDEX. 



Oosterzee, 25, 26. 

Origen, 17, 80, 83, 88, 89, 115, 

117, 125, 128, 209, 241, 301, 

352, 358, 377. 

Owen, 12, 108, 109, 122, 163, 171, 
172, 174, 183, 194, 198, 203, 
210, 245. 

Oxenham, Mr., 207, 218. 

Paley, 65, 66, 69. 

Pantheism, 47, 48, 126. 

Papias, 86, 355. 

Parsism, 57, 58, 64. 

Passover, 309, 321. 

Pearson, Bp., 30, 117, 119, 285. 

Pelagianism, 13, 142, 144, 228. 

Peshito, 87. 

Plumptre, Dr., 269, 372, 381, 385. 

Pope, Dr., 3, 25, 31, 45, 59, 74, 
75, 81, 102, 109, 115, 116, 118, 
122, 126, 134, 148, 178, 229, 
248, 251, 252, 267, 269, 332, 
343. 

Positivism, 52. 

Powell, 295. 

Predestinarianism, 13, 225, 229. 

Preexistence of Souls, 128. 

Premillennarianism, 354. 

Presbyterianism, 277. 

Presbyters, 297. 

Pressense, 59. 

Prevenient Grace, 228. 

Probable Truth, 8. 

Probation, Future, 376. 

Procession, Eternal, 120. 

Prophecy, 66. 

Protestantism, 14, 18, 20, 22, 81, 
96. 

Purgatory, 351. 

QCENSTEDT, 24, 131. 



Ralston, 25. 
Rationalism, 21. 

Reatus culpse and pcense, 134. 

Raymond, 25. 

Remonstrant Confession, 328. 

Ren an, 65. 

Resurrection of Christ, 64. 

Rigg, Dr., 212, 215. 

Ritschl, 201, 214, 215. 

Robertson, P. Y\\, 200, 217. 

Rogers, H., 69. 

Roman Doctrine, 20 ; Tradition, 
90; Original Sin, 147; Justi- 
fication, 236; Faith, 232; Ho- 
liness, 269; Sacraments, 325; 
Baptism, 329 ; Eucharist, 332 ; 
Sacrifice of Mass, 339 ; other 
Sacraments, 346. 

Rothe, 115, 378. 

Row, Preb., 64, 66, 70, 71, 72. 

Rupert of Deutz, 180, 216. 

Sabelliaxism, 115, 156. 

Saumur School, 139. 

SchafPs Commentary, 111, 315, 

322, 323, 356. 
Schism and Heresy, 287. 
Schleiermacher, 115, 214. 
Semi-Pelagian ism, 145. 
Sensuous Theory, 136. 
Shedd, 26, etc. 
Sheldon, 26. 
Socinianism, 181, 212. 
Socinus, 181. 
Sophocles, 42. 
South, 64, 219, 231, 
Spencer, Herbert, 53. 
Spinoza, 48, 49. 
Standards of Doctrine, 20. 
Stanley, 116. 



INDEX. 



391 



Steinmeyer, 64. 
Substitution, 191. 
Summers, 25, 149, 289, 347. 
Supralapsarianism, 226. 
Swete, Dr., 351. 
Swinnock, 270. 

Teaching of Apostles, 291, 337. 
Teleological Argument, 38. 
Tertullian, 17, 88, 89, 115, 117, 

129, 301. 
Theism, 47. 
Theodore, 17. 
Theodoret, 17. 
Theology, Christian, 3, etc. 
Theology, Departments of, 25. 
Theophanies, 110. 
Thomasius, 191, 193, 210, 221, 

222, 241, 282. 
Tigert, 149, 224. 
Traducianism, 128. 
Transcendence, 130. 
Trench, Dr., 167, 172, 196, 199, 

294. 
Trent, Council, 20, 90, 93, 99, 

203, 237, 246, 247, 326, 329, 

332, 337, 339. 



Trinitarian Terms, 122. 
Tritheism, 108. 

Unitarianism, 182, 212. 

Universalism, 140, 376. 

Visible and Invisible Church, 
289. 

Wardlaw, Dr., 222. 

Watson, R., 25, 253. 

Weiss, Dr., 193. 

Wesley, 143, 232, 236, 238, 244, 

252, 255, 258-267, 271, 315, 328. 
Westcott, Dr., 86, 88, 99, 111, 

156, 161, 163, 164, 172, 185, 

253, 375. 

Westminster Confession, 21, 90, 

120, 276, 327, 331. 
Whitelaw, 155. 
Winer, 21, 90, 93, 231, 234, etc. 

Young, Dr., 70, 272. 
Zwingli, 230, 328, 343. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 

a zing agent: Magnesium Cx de 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnoiogies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION" 

I 

- 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



I 

014 475 648 4 % 






m 



m 






M -'"'■ Hi H 

BBmBbshb 






.;.,.v:;..v •-;•:'.; v,>, |||| r " 







